There are no native earthworms in the glaciated regions of North America, including Minnesota, and the earthworms present in these areas are non-native species that have subsequently been introduced from Europe and Asia via human activities beginning with the arrival of European immigrants about 400 years ago.  The most recent period of significant glaciation occurred during the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago) ending with the Wisconsin Glacial Stage and the massive Laurentide ice sheet in North America which covered most of present-day Canada and the northern third of the United States.

Although the European earthworms most people are familiar with (Family: Lumbricidae), including the well-known nightcrawler ( Lumbricus terrestis), have been in Minnesota for many years, jumping worms (Family: Megascoleicidae), which are native east-central Asia (eastern China, the Korean peninsula, and Japan), have only recently been documented in Minnesota and are believed to pose a much greater threat to the environment than the European species.  In part, this is because jumping worms grow much faster, spread more quickly on their own, and reproduce more quickly and efficiently than European earthworms (a single worm is all it takes) and populations can reach extremely high and damaging densities very quickly.  Also known as Asian jumping worms, crazy worms, snake worms, crazy snake worms, Alabama jumpers, and, most recently, disco worms based on their wild and distinctive, snakelike movements when disturbed, jumping worms are also more voracious feeders than European earthworms and can consume up to 95% of the critical litter (duff) layer in forest ecosystems where it is currently believed the potential for damage is the greatest.  Ecosystems of the northern latitudes, and especially forest ecosystems, are particularly susceptible to damage caused by earthworms because these ecologies (soils and microbial, plant, and animal communities) have evolved in the absence of earthworms following the last ice age.

Like European earthworms, and earthworms in general, Asian jumping worms are hermaphroditic (possess both male and female reproductive organs), but unlike European earthworms, Asian jumping worms are also parthenogenic and reproduce via a process called parthenogenesis – a form of asexual reproduction wherein a mate is not required to reproduce, and unfertilized eggs develop into new individuals; once again, a single worm, and potentially a single cocoon, is all it takes to start a new infestation.  Thus far 16 species of jumping worms have been documented in North America and all but two of these species are members of two closely-related genera – Amynthas & Metaphire spp. – and are most commonly represented by three species – Amynthas agrestis, Amynthas tokioensis, and Metaphire hilgendorfi.

Jumping worms live in the litter layer and the top few inches of the soil (the epi-endogeic functional group of earthworms; they do not create burrows and do not move deep into the soil like nightcrawlers) where they rapidly devour surface and soil organic matter and change soil structure and chemistry (including nutrient content and cycling), making soils more subject to erosion, inhibiting seedling establishment and the regeneration of native plants, damaging the relationships between soil fungi and plants, possibly reducing the soil’s ability to absorb and hold water, and even damaging the roots of plants in nurseries, gardens, and native ecosystems.  They can also displace soil fauna and other wildlife like salamanders and ground-nesting birds and thereby disrupt forest food chains.  In combination, research suggests these effects could result in impacts on Minnesota ecosystems that are greater than the impact of any of these factors alone resulting in wide-ranging, cascade effects with significant environmental and socio-economic consequences.

In an attempt to protect Minnesota’s native ecosystems from the damaging effect of jumping worms, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) made the decision to list jumping worms as prohibited invasive species beginning on July 1, 2024 ( Minnesota invasive species laws | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us), making it illegal to possess, import, purchase, transport, or introduce these non-native earthworms in Minnesota except under a permit for disposal, control, research, or education.  Needless to say, these restrictions are a concern for the nursery and landscape industry (growers, garden centers, landscapers, and landscape managers) and allied industries such as mulch and compost suppliers, as well as other industries like construction that involve the movement of soil, municipalities that offer woodchip mulch or compost to their residents as a service and a way to recycle these organic materials, property managers, and other groups and individuals involved in activities that have the potential to spread of jumping worms.

As is the case for all invasive species, prevention is key and the best approach is to avoid the introduction of jumping worms into non-infested areas including nursery production and retail facilities, designed landscapes, and natural areas; once present, they are difficult if not impossible to manage effectively with the tools that are currently available.  And because the activities of people, including nursery and landscape practices, are primary pathways for the spread of jumping worms to new areas, and because there are currently no effective controls for getting rid of them once they have become established, it is important to be proactive in taking precautions to avoid bringing jumping worms onto your property – including production, holding, shipping, and sales areas – and to avoid the introduction of jumping worms to the properties of others.

In response to the public’s concerns about jumping worms and the negative impacts they can have on native ecosystems and managed landscapes, and the unfortunate reality that nursery and landscape practices are known to be an important pathway for the spread of jumping worms, it is important that green industry professionals are aware of and take the jumping worm threat seriously.  Educate yourself about jumping worms and be proactive in taking steps to keep them out of production and retail facilities and otherwise prevent their spread so you will be prepared to answer any questions that your customers may have about jumping worms and your response to the challenges they pose.   Unfortunately, jumping worms are in Minnesota and in the news; and from a public relations perspective, ignorance or indifference about the jumping worm threat is not advised.

The following best management practices are recommended to help prevent the introduction and spread of jumping worms to new areas:

• Be aware.  Educate yourself, your employees, your customers, and others about jumping worms, including their impacts on natural environments and managed landscapes and their means of spread, and to identify jumping worms and recognize the telltale signs of their presence including granular soil that resembles used coffee grounds (see Figure 1).  The University of Minnesota Jumping Worms Project website and the associated Worm Rangers Citizen Science Project provide a wealth of information on jumping worm identification and how to look for them and is a good place to start; updated regularly, the website includes self-guided jumping worm training and weekly Zoom-based training sessions.  The Invasive Species for Homeowners: Asian Jumping Worm brochure produced by the Jumping Worm Outreach, Research, & Management Working Group at Cornell University is a good resource to share with customers.
• Be vigilant.  Always be on the lookout for jumping worms and signs of their presence.  Including in Minnesota, jumping worms have been found in compost, organic landscape mulches (including woodchips), container grown and balled and burlapped (B&B) nursery stock, yard waste, and landscape soils.  Inspect all horticultural commodities and scout production facilities for jumping worms on a regular basis and be on the lookout for jumping worms when installing and managing designed landscapes, paying special attention to moist and shady areas.  Jumping worms have an annual life cycle (see Figure 2; adults die when exposed to freezing temperatures in the fall but leave behind eggs enclosed in protective cocoons that overwinter and typically begin to hatch in late April or early May when the soil temperature reaches 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) to start a new generation the following year.  As a result, adult jumping worms will not be found until late June or July and any large earthworms found in the spring will likely be European species that can live for several years.  Although jumping worms are typically found at or near the soil surface in the litter layer or in organic landscape mulches in managed landscapes, they can be found several inches deep in the soil or within the root ball of container stock where they are less visible.  In such cases, drenching the soil with a mustard solution prepared by mixing one-third cup of powdered yellow mustard with one gallon of water and pouring the solution slowly into the soil can be an effective tool for finding jumping worms.  One gallon of mustard solution is sufficient to treat an area that is about 14 inches square and container stock should be drenched with enough of the mustard solution to wet the entire root ball.  If earthworms are present, they will be irritated, but not killed, by the mustard solution and they will come to the surface.  The root balls of container stock can also be removed from the container and examined for the presence of jumping worms and can also be submerged in a bucket of mustard solution to saturate them and expel earthworms.
• Only buy horticultural commodities from reputable suppliers that are knowledgeable about the jumping worm threat and the potential pathways for their introduction and spread and have procedures in place to help ensure their products are not infested with jumping worms.
• Only use, sell, purchase, and trade landscape plants and landscape and garden materials that are believed to be free of jumping worms.  In the case of jumping worms, appearances can be deceiving so err on the side of caution as newly hatched jumping worms (hatchlings) can be difficult to see in early spring and jumping worm cocoons are very small and difficult to detect.
• Only use, sell, purchase, and trade compost, woodchips, and woodchip mulch that has been exposed to a temperature of at least 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) for a minimum of three days (this recommendation is based on initial research specific to jumping worms conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison or even better to at least 131 degrees Fahrenheit (55 degrees Celsius) for a minimum of three days following the recommended processes to further reduce pathogens (PFRPs) included in US Environmental Protection Agency regulations to kill jumping worms and their eggs and other horticultural pests.  Although the effective temperature and timing may vary somewhat based on soil moisture conditions and other factors, jumping worms and their eggs and developing embryos are killed when exposed to a minimum temperature of 104° Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) for three days; while immature and adult jumping worms are killed at a lower temperature (85 degrees Fahrenheit, 29 degrees Celsius), effective control requires that both jumping worms and their eggs be killed.
  
  Commercially processed compost, mulch, and manufactured growing media are typically exposed to temperatures and other processes that should kill jumping worms during production and these commodities should be free of jumping worms when they leave the manufacturer.  To be safe, always ask the manufacturer about jumping worms and how their products are processed relative to jumping worms and whether they might be subject to becoming infested with jumping worms during the curing/finishing stage of composting when temperatures have cooled down.  Although it is understood that exposure to elevated temperatures can be difficult for larger volumes, similar precautions are also recommended for soil, growing media, and growing media components that might harbor jumping worms as feasible and appropriate. When possible, exposure to higher temperatures up to 180 degrees Fahrenheit (82 degrees Celsius) for a shorter duration (at least 30 minutes is typical) may also be an option depending on the material being treated, the facilities available, and the pests of concern.
  
  Horticultural commodities that are produced and managed with jumping worms in mind (exposure to sufficient heat to kill jumping worms and their eggs, proper storage, etc.) are the safer choice, and nursery and landscape professionals should choose the best course of action relative to jumping worms based on their individual circumstances.
• Compost that is United States Composting Council (USCC) certified through the USCC Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) Certified Compost Program and compost that is state regulated has been exposed to temperatures that will kill jumping worms and their eggs (as well as most pathogens) and commercially processed growing media and organic mulches (Mulch & Soil Council) are typically exposed to temperatures that exceed 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) during production and should be much less likely to contain jumping worms so long as they are handled and stored properly to avoid subsequent infestation (Mulch & Soil Council).  Individual green industry firms can also independently certify the quality of their products relative to jumping worms based on the implementation of production practices designed to reduce the likelihood that they will be a source of jumping worms including exposure to temperatures that are lethal to jumping worms and their eggs during processing.
  
• In general, municipal sources of wood chips and compost should be avoided unless they are implementing practices that are likely to kill jumping worms and their cocoons.  Although the intensions of municipalities that offer wood chip mulch and/or compost to their residents as a service and a way to recycle these organic materials are laudable, it is important that municipal sources of wood chip mulch and compost are managed in a way that results in temperatures that will kill jumping worms and their cocoons with regular mixing to help ensure exposure of all the material in the pile to such temperatures which is not always the case.  While unfortunate, given the source of the materials and the likelihood that these sites are infested with jumping worms, caution is advised.  As for commercial suppliers, ask the municipality if they are aware of jumping worms and whether the procedures they follow are designed to reduce the possibility that the materials they offer are contaminated with jumping worms.
• Solarization (using the energy of the sun to heat materials covered with or enclosed in clear plastic to help control diseases and other pests) can be an effective means for exposing relatively small volumes or layers of soil, compost, mulch, and other materials (including bagged materials) to temperatures that are sufficient to kill jumping worms and their eggs (again, a least 104 degrees Fahrenheit, 40 degrees Celsius, for a minimum of three days).  The material being solarized should be moist to enhance the process.
• Steam is a tool that has long been used as a standard practice for managing diseases, insects, weeds, and other pests in greenhouse and nursery settings by using low pressure, aerated steam to pasteurize growing media, nursery pots and trays, and used growing media and plant wastes and can be used to produce temperatures that will kill jumping worms and their eggs.  Depending on the pest or pests of concern, temperatures of 140-180 degrees Fahrenheit (60-82 degrees Celsius) for a minimum of 30 minutes are typically used.
• On behalf of your customers and for your own due diligence, ask your suppliers if they are aware of jumping worms and what doing to help prevent the spread of jumping worms when sourcing horticultural commodities and be prepared to answer questions about jumping worms from your customers. 
• Jumping worms do not live in trees and woodchips that come directly from chipped trees and have not come in contact with the ground or other materials that may be infested with jumping worms, or been transported in contaminated equipment (trucks, trailers, etc.), and should be safe to use as landscape mulch.  Nursery and landscape professionals and homeowners looking for woodchips might think about making arrangements with a local arborist to obtain fresh woodchips.  Another option to consider is ChipDrop, a national, online service that matches people who are looking for free wood chip mulch with arborists and tree companies who are looking for a place to dispose of wood chips. Note that drops cannot be scheduled for a particular day or time, it may be several weeks before wood chips are delivered, and woodchip loads can be large.  Check the ChipDrop website for more information and details.
• When possible and when in doubt about the presence of jumping worms, selling and purchasing bare root plants (plants without soil or another growing medium on their roots) may reduce the risk of spreading jumping worms by helping to ensure jumping worm cocoons are not present.  It is important that the soil or other growing medium is judiciously removed from the roots such that no soil or growing medium remains.  This can be accomplished by first removing the bulk of the growing medium from the roots mechanically followed by washing the roots to remove any remaining material.  Remember that the wash water may contain cocoons and should not be disposed of in a different location or allowed to drain offsite.  Wash water can also be collected and strained to remove any solids which should then be sealed in a polyethylene bag and disposed of in the trash.  Once again, solarization by placing the sealed polyethylene bag in the sun until the material reaches a temperature of at least 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) for a minimum of three days will help ensure that any cocoons that are present will be killed.  Bare-rooting plants is best done when plants are dormant but can be done for some plants that are more tolerant of the stress involved when they are in leaf, being careful to keep the roots cool and moist and the plants well-watered until established following planting.
• Inspect shipments of horticultural commodities, including delivery trucks and containers, for jumping worms (and other pests) before and during unloading, notify the supplier if jumping worms are found, and do not accept infested shipments.  Jumping worms have been found in trucks delivering nursery stock to Minnesota garden centers from out of state.
• Whenever possible, store bagged compost, bagged organic soil conditioners, bagged mulch, and landscape plants in a manner that avoids contact with the ground to help prevent infestation with jumping worms.  Raised benches and elevated storge platforms for bagged horticultural commodities (compost, mulch, soil, etc.) and plants are a good idea.
• Arrive clean, leave clean; always clean soil and debris from vehicles, equipment, tools, and personal gear (footwear, gloves, clothing) before moving from one location or property to another and do not transport infested soil or landscape debris to new areas unless it has been sufficiently heat treated.  The handling of soil from sites that may be infested with jumping worms is a concern, and the MNLA is working with the state agencies that are reviewing disposal options for such soils to help manage this potential pathway for the spread of jumping worms.  These types of precautions should be standard practice for preventing the spread of jumping worms and other invasive species and pests.
• Do not sell, buy, or use jumping worms, or other species of earthworms from sources that may be contaminated with jumping worms, for composting (vermiculture/vermicomposting), soil improvement, or fishing bait.  And since it is difficult to know if earthworms purchased for vermicomposting (typically red wigglers) are contaminated with other types of earthworms including jumping worms, earthworms used for composting should not be released into the outdoor environment.  The addition of earthworms to residential compost piles is not required for backyard compost piles to function properly.
• Report suspected jumping worm infestations using EDDMapS Midwest or the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Report a Pest webpage. A map of the current distribution of jumping worms in the United States (including Minnesota) is available on the EDDMapS website.  If there is concern about the presence of jumping worms being tied to a specific property, suspected infestations can also be reported such that the exact location is not public via the University of Minnesota Jumping Worm Project website or by contacting Laura Van Riper at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or Jim Calkins at the MNLA.  Good quality pictures of the suspected jumping worms (be sure to rinse off soil and other debris) that provide a clear view of the clitellum (if present; the collar- or saddle-like band located toward the head end of adult earthworms that is part of the reproductive system and is only present on sexually mature, adult worms) in relation to the head end of the worm should be submitted along with reports of suspected jumping worm infestations and a short video showing the movements of suspected jumping worms can also be helpful.  It is also a good idea to preserve specimens in alcohol (ethyl alcohol is best) and refrigerate them in case an expert would like to see the sample.
  
  Given the regulatory concerns associated with the listing of jumping worms as prohibited invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources beginning on July 1, 2024, we understand that nursery and landscape professionals and property owners may be hesitant when it comes to reporting jumping worm finds.  It is, however, important to understand the distribution of jumping worms in the state from a research and regulatory perspective and reporting is encouraged.
• Remove and destroy any jumping worms that are found by placing them in a sealed polyethylene bag and placing them in the trash.  Adult and immature jumping worms may also be killed by placing them in a container of rubbing alcohol or vinegar or solarizing or freezing them in a polyethylene bag before disposing of them in the trash.
• Whenever possible, retaining organic materials and landscape soils that are infested with jumping worms (or other pests including noxious weeds as defined on the Minnesota Noxious Weed List or are suspected of being infested with jumping worms (or other pests), on the property where they originated, rather than moving them offsite, is generally considered the safest and, therefore, the preferred option for preventing the spread of these pests at this time.  Unless such materials can be isolated and heat treated on site, it is very risky to allow yard waste and landscape soil that is infested with jumping worms to be deposited at a nursery and landscape business facility and caution is advised.  In fact, given that jumping worms are now regulated as prohibited invasive species in Minnesota, it is illegal to transport jumping worms in Minnesota without a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MNDNR.  And while it is understood that client preferences and site conditions may make it difficult to leave infested materials at some residential and commercial properties from a landscape management perspective in more urbanized areas, it is important to have a plan for handling such materials.  And once again, the transportation of jumping worms in Minnesota is prohibited without a permit from the MNDNR.

Although composting is not the ideal solution, composting sites that meet the minimum temperature and other requirements specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA; 131 degrees Fahrenheit, 55 degrees Celsius, for a minimum of 15 days and a process that helps ensure all of the material being composted is exposed to such temperatures) are currently the best option for the offsite disposal of organic wastes that are or may be infested with jumping worms (and noxious weeds) with the exception of retaining such materials on the site where they originated.  Information about composting sites registered with the MPCA, including a compost site locator tool, is available on the MPCA website. Contact information for these facilities is also provided.  Only the composting facilities that have the apple core icons (sites that take food waste) and not the tree icons are required to follow the minimum temperature (131° Fahrenheit, 55 degrees Celsius) and pile turning requirements under their MPCA permits.  Other facilities that are not permitted for food waste by the MPCA may follow similar procedures, but exposure to 131° Fahrenheit (55 degrees Celsius) and regular turning of the piles are not permit requirements so you should explain your concerns about jumping worms and ask them about their process.  Remember, too, that 131° Fahrenheit (55 degrees Celsius) is a higher temperature than what is required to kill jumping worms and their eggs (104 degrees Fahrenheit, 40 degrees Celsius, for at least three days and attempting to ensure that the entire pile is exposed to such conditions over time through regular turning of the pile) and the process followed by other facilities may meet this requirement.  In all cases, it is recommended to call ahead to let the facility know you are bringing in yard waste material that is infested with jumping worms, or suspected of being infested with jumping worms, to make sure they will accept the material.

None of the MPCA composting sites are appropriate for the disposal of landscape soils which is a concern that does not have a good solution at this time and existing facilities that accept soil from landscapers and landscape managers (not a wise practice if the site is not already infested with jumping worms) and permitted landfills are currently the only offsite options for disposal at this time.  Permitted landfills are believed to be the best option and especially if the landfill site is already infested.  As for yard waste, if soil is known or believed to be infested with jumping worms, it is recommended to call ahead to let the facility know this to make sure they will accept the material.  A list of MPCA permitted landfills that accept mixed municipal solid waste is available on the MPCA website.

Once again, whenever feasible, retaining organic materials and landscape soils that are known or suspected as being infested with jumping worms or other pests on the property where they originated, rather than moving them offsite, is the safest option for preventing the spread of these pests at this time. The MNLA and others continue to work with the MPCA with the goal of develop a plan for disposing of nursery and landscape materials that are infested with jumping worms.  In situations where keeping infested materials on site is not possible, nursery and landscape professionals may contact the MPCA at 651-296-6300 to be directed to an MPCA representative who can work with you on a case-by-case basis to safely dispose of soil, container stock, and other materials that are infested with jumping worms until a more detailed disposal strategy is developed.

As the available disposal options for materials that are contaminated with jumping worms indicates, the current waste management system has not been designed with the goal of preventing the spread of jumping worms and other invasive species as a primary focus.  As a consequence, the disposal options that are currently available are not perfect and discussions about the best options for handling yard waste, nursery stock, and soil that is infested with jumping worms and other pests continue.  

Although the Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) understands that these BMPs are not perfect, they have been developed based on the most current information available on how to help prevent the spread of jumping worms at this time.  Jumping worms are a serious concern and a threat the nursery and landscape industry cannot afford to ignore; instead, wisdom suggests the green industry should be an educated and proactive leader in helping to prevent the spread of jumping worms.  To this end, nursery and landscape professionals are encouraged to determine how they will respond to the challenges posed by jumping worms and how to share this information with their customers and clients.

The MNLA is committed to supporting research on the management of jumping worms and these BMPs will be regularly updated based on the findings of jumping worm research.  This includes the ongoing jumping worm research at the University of Minnesota that is being funded by the Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pests Center (MITPPC), the Horticultural Research Institute, and the Legislative-Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources which include the development of improved jumping worm BMPs and control options as primary objectives.

Figure 1.  Mature jumping worms and the telltale, granular soil texture they produce when present in large numbers (below); note the clitella (singular = clitellum), the light-colored, reproductive structures that encircle the body near the head end of these adult worms; compared to European earthworms, the clitellum of a jumping worm is milky white to gray in color, flush with the body, encircles the body completely like a ring, and is located 14-16 segments from the head-end, while the clitellum of a European earthworm is pinkish to reddish in color, raised and saddle-like on the upper surface of the body, and located further (23-32 segments) from the head-end of the worm; the bodies of jumping worms are also iridescent and not slimy, while the bodies of European earthworms are slimy; and, of course, jumping worms become very active with serpentine, snake-like, and thrashing movements when disturbed while European earthworms tend to wriggle slowly and move by stretching and contracting their bodies (Photo Credit: James Calkins, Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association).

Figure 2: Jumping worm hatchlings (left); jumping worm eggs are enclosed in protective cocoons and can survive exposure to temperature of at least -40 degrees Fahrenheit (-40 degrees Celsius); eggs begin to hatch when soil temperatures reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) in the spring (Photo Credit: James Calkins, Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association).

Figure 3: Jumping worm cocoons (left) are spherical in shape, light to dark brown in color, and only 2-3 mm in diameter; their small size makes them difficult to see and differentiate from small particles of soil or organic material and easy to move unknowingly with soil, mulch, compost, container grown stock, balled & burlapped stock, and bare root plants with soil attached to their roots (Photo Credit: Marie Johnston, UW-Madison Arboretum).

Figure 4: The annual life cycle of jumping worms (Amynthas agrestis, Amynthas tokioensis, Metaphire hilgendorfi, and others) (Image Credit: McCay, T.S. et al.  2020.  Tools for Monitoring and Study of Peregrine Pheretimoid Earthworms (Megascolecidae). Tools for monitoring and study of peregrine pheretimoid earthworms (Megascolecidae) - ScienceDirect.

The UMass Extension Landscape, Nursery and Urban Forestry Program (Center for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment, University of Massachusetts Amherst) has developed a excellent factsheet entitled Invasive Jumping Worm Frequently Asked Questions that provides additional information about the identification, distribution and spread, biology, impacts, and management of jumping worms based on discussion at a Jumping Worm Conference hosted by UMass Extension in January 2022.

Additional information about the identification, life cycle, and management of jumping worms, along with links to additional resources pertaining to jumping worms, are available in a companion factsheet entitled Jumping/Crazy/Snake Worms – Amynthas spp. Produced by the UMass Extension Landscape, Nursery and Urban Forestry Program.

___

June 28, 2021; revised June 23, 2022, and July 12, 2024.  Originally adapted from jumping worm best management practices developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and a committee of Wisconsin green industry professionals.  If you have questions, contact James Calkins at 952-935-0682 or 612-258-7744 (cell).

Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association

651-633-4987

forrest@mnla.biz

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 18, 2019

Rep. Peter Fischer Named MNLA 2019 Green Industry Advocate of the Year

Roseville, MN – The Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) named Representative Peter Fischer (DFL, Maplewood) as 2019 Green Industry Advocate of the Year. Rep. Fischer received his prestigious award on July 18, 2019 at an awards ceremony at the MNLA offices in Roseville, MN, attended by MNLA leadership, members, and staff. MNLA President Scott Frampton of Landscape Renovations and MNLA Vice President Tim Malooly of Irrigation by Design presented Rep. Fischer with his award.

Rep. Fischer was tireless in his efforts during the 2019 session to establish liability protections for certified commercial salt applicators in the state of Minnesota to encourage less salt use by commercial owners and snow removal companies. He expertly navigated the House committee process, successfully passing the bill in the House of Representatives by including the language in the Environment and Natural Resources finance bill. Rep. Fischer did a tremendous job as a clean water and small business advocate, fighting for MNLA’s priority environment and business bill.

“As the chair of the Subcommittee on Water in the House, Representative Fischer’s commitment to clean water and small-business is clear,” said MNLA President Scott Frampton. “While the [salt liability] bill did not become law this session, we’re eager to continue working with Rep. Fischer to implement this common-sense policy for the benefit of Minnesota’s lakes and streams. We thank him for his leadership.”

Rep. Peter Fischer (DFL, Maplewood) has served in the Minnesota House of Representatives since 2012, most recently re-elected in 2018. He currently serves as chair of the Subcommittee on Water.

The Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association is the state's oldest and largest green industry trade organization. Started in 1925 as the Minnesota Nurserymen's Association, today MNLA represents and serves nursery and greenhouse growers, garden centers, irrigation contractors, industry suppliers, and a wide range of landscape professionals. The association aims to help these members operate their businesses more successfully by providing education, networking, legislative and regulatory representation, public relations, and financial benefits through group purchasing and other member services.

Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association                                                           

651-633-4987

forrest@mnla.biz

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 18, 2019

Sen. Jason Rarick Named MNLA 2019 Green Industry Advocate of the Year

Roseville, MN – The Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) named Senator Jason Rarick (R, Pine City) as 2019 Green Industry Advocate of the Year. Senator Rarick received his prestigious award on July 18, 2019 at an awards ceremony at the MNLA offices in Roseville, MN, attended by MNLA leadership, members, and staff. MNLA President Scott Frampton of Landscape Renovations and MNLA Vice President Tim Malooly of Irrigation by Design presented Sen Rarick with his award.

Sen. Rarick worked tirelessly throughout the 2019 legislative session to pass retainage reform, priority legislation for MNLA. This bill implemented a trigger date for when retainage withheld on construction contracts must be released, providing much needed certainty for contracting businesses throughout Minnesota, including many MNLA members. Sen. Rarick’s leadership was essential to successfully implementing these changes to ensure that those who complete their work will be paid in full.

“MNLA is thankful for Senator Jason Rarick’s ongoing commitment to empowering small businesses and subcontractors throughout Minnesota,” said Scott Frampton, MNLA President. “We look forward to working with Senator Rarick in the future.”

Senator Rarick is the newest member of the Senate GOP caucus, elected on February 5, 2019 to fill the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Tony Lourey. He previously served as a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

The Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association is the state's oldest and largest green industry trade organization. Started in 1925 as the Minnesota Nurserymen's Association, today MNLA represents and serves nursery and greenhouse growers, garden centers, irrigation contractors, industry suppliers, and a wide range of landscape professionals. The association aims to help these members operate their businesses more successfully by providing education, networking, legislative and regulatory representation, public relations, and financial benefits through group purchasing and other member services.

The entire state of Wisconsin will soon be under quarantine for emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis).  The decision to place the entire state of Wisconsin under quarantine was announced by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) on March 21 with an effective date of March 30, 2018.  Most recently, EAB had been discovered in the City of Eau Claire in Eau Claire County on November 27, 2017, and Eau Claire County was subsequently added to the list of Wisconsin counties quarantined for EAB in December.  The Eau Claire infestation was the seventh new EAB infestation identified outside previously quarantined areas in Wisconsin and Eau Claire County was the seventh county added to the Wisconsin EAB quarantine list since August (Chippewa, Eau Claire, Green Lake, Marathon, Marinette, Waupaca, and Waushara Counties).  As has been reported previously, EAB has only been confirmed in one new county in Minnesota during the same period (Martin County in August).  Prior to the announcement of the pending statewide quarantine, EAB infestations had been documented in 48 counties and 49 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties (68%), including all of the counties in the southern half of the state and seven counties scattered across the northern part of the state, were under quarantine for EAB.  In addition, with the exception of two counties (Iron County located east of Ashland County and bordering Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and Menominee County in the northeastern quadrant of the state), all of the counties in Wisconsin were either already under quarantine for EAB or adjacent to a quarantined county in the state of Wisconsin or a neighboring state.  The formal announcement of the statewide quarantine in Wisconsin is available on the DATCP website at https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/News_Media/EABStateQuarantine.aspx and https://datcp.wi.gov/Documents/EABStateQuarantine.pdf. 

As nursery and landscape professionals are well aware, EAB poses a serious threat to green, white, and black ash trees (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Fraxinus americana, and Fraxinus nigra, respectively) growing in designed landscapes and native ecosystems and Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) members located in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and that do business across state lines, will want to be aware of this expansion of the EAB quarantine.  Nursery and landscape firms should also continue to educate their customers about the threat of EAB and how to manage and prevent the spread of this devastating insect pest.

Although the presence of EAB in 49 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties is a depressing statistic, it is important to note that, with the exception of areas in the far southeastern corner of the state and a few counties bordering Minnesota in the southwestern part of the state, most of Wisconsin (approximately 80%) remains EAB-free.  The same is also true for Minnesota where only 16 of the state’s 87 counties (18%), almost exclusively located in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and several counties in southeastern Minnesota, are currently under full or partial quarantine in an attempt to slow the spread of EAB in the state.  The reality is that most of Minnesota and Wisconsin remain EAB-free and preventing the spread of EAB to new areas should remain a top priority.

Although updates to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) website following the announcement of the statewide quarantine are expected, a list of confirmed EAB infestations in Wisconsin by county, municipality, and date of confirmation is available on the DATCP website here, and a map showing where EAB has actually been detected in Wisconsin can be found at https://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/article.jsp?topicid=25.  See the link to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) website below to view a map of the EAB infestations and quarantined areas in Minnesota.

Avoid moving firewood.  It cannot be overemphasized that infested firewood is considered a primary vector of EAB and firewood may not be moved from quarantined areas to non-quarantined areas.  Better yet, firewood should not be moved around the state or even within an infested county.  In Minnesota, firewood may only be moved outside quarantined areas if it has been heat-treated to state standards and certified by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture under a compliance agreement.  With the entire state of Wisconsin under quarantine, firewood can legally be moved freely between counties within the state, but the movement of firewood is still discouraged unless it has been properly treated.  Remember that, in addition to EAB, firewood can harbor a variety of damaging insect pests and diseases and movement of firewood can introduce these pests to areas that are not yet infested.  The interstate movement of EAB-regulated articles continues to be regulated at the federal level by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and by the individual states.  Additional information about moving firewood in Minnesota is available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/firewood.aspx and at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/firewood/firewood-dealers.aspx.  The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources also has firewood restrictions (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/firewood/index.html).  Information on moving firewood in Wisconsin is available at https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Programs_Services/MovingFirewood.aspx and from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/firewood.html.

History of EAB in North America and in Minnesota and Neighboring States

Native to east-central Asia, emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis; Coleoptera: Buprestidae) was first documented in North America in 2002 in southeastern Michigan (Detroit area) and has since spread to 30 states in the Eastern, Midwestern (including Minnesota), and Mountain regions of the United States and the far southern portions of two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec).  Capable of attacking healthy trees, hundreds of millions of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) have already been killed in infested areas and all three species of ash native to the Upper Midwest and Minnesota are susceptible to attack – white ash (Fraxinus americana), black ash (Fraxinus nigra; most common in northern Minnesota and the most numerous species in the state), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica; also called red ash; the most widely distributed species in the state and the most commonly planted species in designed landscapes).  As a result, it is estimated that as many as one billion ash trees could be at risk in Minnesota alone.

In Minnesota, EAB was first documented in Ramsey County in 2009 (May); EAB was also confirmed in Hennepin and Houston Counties the same year and all three counties were subsequently quarantined by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA).  Winona County was added to the list of quarantined counties in 2011.  Since then, the destructive, non-native emerald ash borer beetle has continued to spread to new areas and, as of this writing, 16 of Minnesota’s 87 counties (18%) are currently subject to complete or partial quarantines in an attempt to prevent the spread of emerald ash borer in the state.  Fifteen (15) counties are covered by complete quarantines including Anoka (2015), Chisago (2015), Dakota (2014), Dodge (2016), Fillmore (2015), Goodhue (2017), Hennepin (2009), Houston (2009), Martin (2017), Olmsted (2014), Ramsey (2009), Scott (2015), Wabasha (2016), Washington (2015), and Winona (2011) Counties.  A partial quarantine (established in September 2016 and formalized in March 2017) is also in effect for southeastern St. Louis County.

Originally the quarantine in St. Louis County was limited to Park Point in the City of Duluth (November 2015), but has subsequently been expanded to include the southeastern portion of St. Louis County including the entire City of Duluth in response to additional EAB finds.  The remainder of St. Louis County is not currently under quarantine.  Superior, WI (Douglas County), is also infested and was quarantined in 2013.  Although the infestations in Duluth, MN, and Superior, WI, are in areas where winter temperatures tend to be moderated by Lake Superior, these infestations are close to the larger populations of ash trees in the colder, more forested areas of both states.  As a result, depending on the actual winter temperatures experienced, we may soon learn whether these infestations will be able to expand and affect ash trees in the adjacent, colder areas where laboratory studies have suggested EAB populations may not be able to reach tree-killing levels as a result of the winter temperatures typically experienced in these regions.  With the exception of the City of Duluth and the recent find in Martin County, the current EAB infestations in Minnesota are limited to the Twin Cities metropolitan area and the southeastern corner of the state.

Fortunately the spread of EAB in Minnesota has been slower than what has been experienced in other infested areas and the new finds in Dodge, Martin, and Wabasha Counties, and the expanded quarantines in Goodhue and St. Louis Counties are the only new areas that have been added to the Minnesota EAB quarantine in 2016 and so far this year (2017).  Of course, this may change as this is a time of year when new finds are common as a result of woodpecker activity focused on EAB larvae in infested trees as was recently the case in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin.  Although the spread of EAB and the number of trees that have been lost in Minnesota have been atypical compared to the more easterly infestations in other states, it is possible that EAB is beginning to spread more quickly.  Beginning with the first EAB finds in Minnesota in 2009, six (6) counties were quarantined during the first six years (2009-2014) of the Minnesota invasion, but, including the most recent find in Martin County in August of this year, quarantines have subsequently been added in ten (10) additional counties since then (2015-August 2017).  Whether this trend continues remains to be seen.

Emerald ash borer is also present in Iowa (mainly in eastern and southern counties) and a few counties in east-central Nebraska, but has not yet been found in North or South Dakota.  The Minnesota and Nebraska infestations, plus infestations in a small number of counties just across the state borders in eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and an isolated infestation in Boulder County, CO, are currently the western-most infestations in North America.  In Canada, the EAB infestation is currently limited to extreme south-central Quebec and southeastern Ontario and an isolated infestation in the Thunder Bay, Ontario, area approximately 45 miles northeast of the Minnesota border.  The introduction of EAB in North America, which likely occurred in the early 1990s, was a human-mediated event and, more recently, the long-distance and initially-isolated infestations of EAB in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, the Duluth/Superior area, Thunder Bay (Ontario, Canada), Rhinelander (WI), the Kansas City (MO/KS) metropolitan area, the southwestern Arkansas/northern Louisiana/northeast Texas region, and in Boulder County (CO), were almost certainly human-mediated introductions.  Along with other control efforts, all concerned must be constantly diligent and take great care to avoid moving EAB-infested materials, including firewood, to non-infested areas to slow the spread of this devastating insect pest.

Selected Links to Additional EAB Information

• General information about the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) emerald ash borer (EAB) program and links to more specific information about EAB in Minnesota are available on the MDA website at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.aspx.
• The text of the Minnesota EAB quarantine (Version 11; May 9, 2017) is available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab/eabquarantine.aspx.  The quarantine addresses the use and movement of regulated materials which include the insect itself (all life stages); all plants and plant parts of the genus Fraxinus, including nursery stock, scion and bud wood, logs, branches, stumps, and roots, chips and mulch (composted or not); firewood of any non-coniferous species, and other materials deemed to be a risk for the spread of EAB by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
• A new, interactive, searchable, ArcGIS online map of specific EAB finds and generally infested, quarantined, and biocontrol areas in Minnesota is available at https://mnag.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=63ebb977e2924d27b9ef0787ecedf6e9.A summary of the status of EAB in Minnesota, along with information about some of the activities being pursued by the MDA to better understand and track EAB in the state, are available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/invasivesunit/~/media/Files/plants/invasives/statusrpt-eab.pdf.
• Additional information about EAB in Wisconsin is available at http://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/article.jsp?topicid=20 (once again, updates to this information are expected in response to the new, statewide quarantine).
• And finally, additional information regarding the status of EAB in North America is available on the Emerald Ash Borer Information Network website at http://emeraldashborer.info and from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/emerald-ash-borer.

Referred to as the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Rule, the new rules are part of the broader Hours of Service (HOS) regulations (49 CFR 395 – Hours of Service of Drivers) that govern the on duty, driving time, and break requirements for divers of CMVs including truck drivers.  The new regulations eliminate the use of the paper logs that have historically been used to document a truck driver’s Record of Duty Status (RODS; 49 CFR 395.8 – Driver’s Record of Duty Status; see resources) and requires the use of ELDs to automatically record the travel history of commercial vehicles.  New supporting document requirements are also included in the new ELD Rule (49 CFR 395.11 – Supporting Documents).  Links to additional information about the new ELD Rule and its requirements are included in the resources section below.

Although the HOS regulations outside the new ELD requirements remain essentially the same, the cost of the mandated ELDs, confusion about the definition of “agricultural commodities” as related to agricultural exceptions to the rule, and concerns about timely deliveries and increased shipping costs, have sparked controversy and discussions about the rule and its consequences continue.  Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) members and other green industry professionals may be affected by these new regulations and should familiarize themselves with the requirements of the new ELD regulations to determine if and how they might be affected and to insure they are in compliance.  Understanding how to use ELD technology will, of course, also be important.  It is up to each owner operator or fleet manager to ensure that the HOS documentation system they use is in compliance with the most current regulations.

The ELD Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2015, and the rule went into effect on December 18, 2017 (phase-in compliance date); although there is confusion related to the definition of “agricultural commodities,” an agricultural commodities waiver is in place until March 19, 2018, and horticultural commodities (i.e., plants) appear to be included in the waiver.  Whether or not horticultural products, and especially flowers and landscape plants (including sod), are considered “agricultural commodities” is uncertain, but important, relative to the agricultural exemptions included in the rule.  In general, when transporting agricultural commodities during the planting and harvest season (March 15 through December 15 in Minnesota), drivers are exempt from the HOS rules (including the maximum work and driving hours allowed within a 24-hour period; 14 and 11 hours, respectively) and the requirement to use an ELD for trips within a 150 air-mile (172 road/land miles; one air mile equals about 1.15 land/road miles) radius of the location where the trip begins.  Once the 150 air mile radius is exceeded, however, the HOS rules apply and the driver must activate the ELD.  Finally, drivers are not required to use an ELD if the vehicle was manufactured before the 2000 model year, so long as they keep paper logs, or if they do not operate outside the 150 air mile radius for more than eight days during a rolling 30-day period so long as paper logs are kept on the days when they are not exempt from the HOS rules.

AmericanHort (http://www.americanhort.org), the primary national association for the green industry, has also been following the ELD Rule and its potential effects on the green industry and reports that April 1, 2018, will be the hard deadline for enforcement of the new regulations according to the FMCSA (trucks pulled off the road, fines, etc. for non-compliance) (Talmage/Tal Coley, Director of Government Affairs, AmericanHort; personal communication).  Although the new regulations are already in effect, AmericanHort and others remain engaged and discussions with the FMCSA, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and members of Congress continue; the definition of “agricultural commodities” is a part of these discussions.

Although ELDs are the new requirement, it should be noted that Records of Duty Status (RODS) generated and maintained by Automatic On-Board Recording Devices (AOBRDs; older ELD technology) that meet the specifications of the HOS regulations (49 CFR 395.15 – Automatic On-Board Recording Devices) and were installed before the effective date of the new ELD Rule (December 18, 2017) may continue to be used by drivers to document their HOS until December 16, 2019 (full compliance date).  After this date, the use of these devices will no longer be allowed and all drivers will be required to use ELDs.  Only ELDs that are certified and registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and included on the FMCSA's Registered ELDs List, available through the FMCSA website (see resources below), may be used.

The intent of this regulatory update is to advise MNLA members of these rule changes and not to address all of the particulars of the HOS rules and the new ELD requirements as they are extensive and may vary based on the specific situation.  In general, if you or your firm’s drivers are currently required to keep Records of Duty Status (RODS) and vehicles that weight more than 10,000 pounds (5 tones; including trailers) are involved, these new regulations may apply and further investigation is advised to insure you are in compliance.  After reviewing the new rule requirements, questions may be directed to Charles (Chuck) St. Martin (Federal Program Manager, Minnesota Division) in the local FMCSA office in St. Paul (380 Jackson Street, Galtier Plaza, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101; 651-291-6150, charles.stmartin@dot.gov).

If you have concerns about the new ELD Rule and its effects on your business, please share them with Jim Calkins at jim@mnla.biz or 952-935-0682.  Documentation of price increases, increased driver and trucking shortages, higher shipping costs, increased job costs and reduced profits, longer delivery times, more plants stressed or lost during transit, and any other negative impacts associated with the new ELD Rule will be helpful in supporting national efforts to address the concerns of the horticulture industry relative to these new regulations.

For additional information about the HOS regulations (49 CFR 395) and the new ELD requirements, the following resources available from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and other sources may be of interest:

• Hours of Service – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-of-service
• ELD Factsheet – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-fact-sheet-english-version
• ELD Checklist for Drivers – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-checklist-drivers
• ELD Checklist for Carriers – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-checklist-carriers
• ELD Hours of Service (HOS) and Agriculture Exemptions – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-hours-service-hos-and-agriculture-exemptions
• Who is exempt from the ELD rule? – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/faq/what-exceptions-are-allowed-electronic-logging-device-rule
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - ELD Rule – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/faqs
• Choosing an Electronic Logging Device Checklist – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/choosing-electronic-logging-device-checklist
• Electronic Logging Devices - Registered ELDs – https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ELD/List
• ELD Supporting Documents in Phase 2 – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-supporting-documents-phase-2
• Implementation Timeline – https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/implemetaion-timeline
• 49 CFR 395.11 – Supporting Documents – https://www.govregs.com/regulations/expand/title49_chapterIII_part395_subpartA_section395.11#title49_chapterIII_part395_subpartA_section395.11
• 49 CFR 395.8(k)(1) – Hours of Service of Drivers – https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&=PART&n=pt49.5.395
• 49 CFR 395.15 – Automatic On-Board Recording Devices – https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&=PART&n=pt49.5.395#se49.5.395_120
  
• Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents Final Rule (Federal Register Archives, December 16, 2015) – https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/pdf/2015-31336.pdf

The 2018 iteration of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) Nursery Stock Cold Hardiness List is now available on the MDA website at

As stated in the Minnesota Nursery Law:

(a) Plants, plant materials, or nursery stock must not be labeled or advertised with false or misleading information including, but not limited to, scientific name, variety, place of origin, and hardiness zone as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, and growth habit.

(b) All nonhardy nursery stock as designated by the commissioner must be labeled correctly for hardiness or be labeled "nonhardy" in Minnesota.

The MDA Nursery Stock Cold Hardiness List divides nursery stock into eight primary categories with some overlap: Trees (deciduous and evergreen), Fruit (herbaceous and woody species), Fruit/Produce (asparagus and rhubarb), Grasses (landscape grasses), Perennials (herbaceous perennials), Roses, Shrubs (deciduous and evergreen, needle leaf and broadleaf), and Vines. According to the MDA, whenever nursery stock is labeled for cold hardiness, the hardiness rating on the label must be consistent with the cold hardiness rating published in the MDA Nursery Stock Cold Hardiness List. So long as the correct USDA plant cold hardiness rating is included on the label, nothing further is needed. Conversely, nursery stock that isn’t specifically labeled for cold hardiness and isn’t cold hardy in the area in which it is being sold must be labeled “nonhardy” to be in compliance with the Minnesota Nursery Law.

Note that cultivars are sometimes listed separately from the parent species when their cold hardiness has been documented as being different from the generally accepted cold hardiness level for the species based on credible evidence supporting the difference. For cultivars that are not specifically listed, nursery professionals and the public should refer to the species for the appropriate cold hardiness zone rating.

The MDA Nursery Stock Cold Hardiness List is reviewed and updated on an annual basis and multiple sources of information are considered during the review process. The Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) has historically submitted comments as part of the annual review process and was pleased to have the opportunity to provide input once again this year. As in past years, the MNLA convened a review panel to review the draft MDA list in September and the group’s comments were submitted to the MDA for review and consideration by MDA staff. We thank the members of the MNLA review panel for sharing their time and expertise and note that many of the MNLA recommendations are reflected in the 2018 updated list. The current cold hardiness list will remain unchanged and effective until the list is reviewed and updated once again in September 2018.

The MDA Nursery Stock Cold Hardiness List impacts the MNLA membership from a regulatory perspective and MNLA members have a vested interest in assuring that the public has the best and most up-to-date cold hardiness information when purchasing landscape plants. For these reasons, the MNLA will remain engaged in the MDA’s cold hardiness assessment process. To this end, consensus among our members is important and we are interested in any comments you might have about the cold hardiness list and its implementation, and the annual review process in general, from a nursery and landscape perspective in preparation for next year’s review. We also encourage and would welcome additional participation from interested MNLA members during next year’s review of the MDA cold hardiness list; please let us know if you would be interested in serving on the MNLA review panel so we can add you to the list of reviewers for next year.

For additional information about cold hardiness labeling requirements for nursery stock, and questions about other nursery stock labeling requirements under the Minnesota Nursery Law, contact Steven Shimek (Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection Division) at steven.shimek@state.mn.us or (651) 201-6619. Additional information about the MDA Nursery Inspection & Certification Program, which is responsible for the administration of the Minnesota Nursery Law, including compliance with the law’s cold hardiness labeling requirements, is also available on the MDA website at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/licensing/licensetypes/nurseryprogram.aspx.

Note: In past years, a number of MNLA members have wondered whether the MDA Nursery Stock Cold Hardiness List is available in Excel spreadsheet form. While the MDA cannot post Excel documents on its website, the Excel spreadsheet can be obtained from the MNLA by contacting Jim Calkins at jim@mnla.biz.

In recent weeks, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has unfortunately confirmed two new infestations of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in two additional Minnesota counties – Todd County and Douglas County, adjacent counties located in west-central Minnesota. The Todd County infestation was reported by the MDA in a news release on October 13 followed by the Douglas County infestation on October 27 which resulted from an ongoing investigation of the Todd County discovery (see reference list for links to the news releases). As a consequence of these new finds, small, isolated populations of Palmer amaranth have now been confirmed in four Minnesota counties, all located in west-central Minnesota – Douglas, Lyon, Todd, and Yellow Medicine Counties. Notably, all of the infestations discovered in Minnesota thus far have been associated with first-year conservation plantings and are believed to have resulted from seed mixes contaminated with Palmer amaranth seed. The MDA takes this highly-problematic weed very seriously and is currently working diligently to eradicate these existing infestations and is optimistic that all of the known infestations can be successfully eradicated. So far, no Palmer amaranth plants have been identified in crop production fields which is good news and the MDA continues its search for the source(s) of the seed mixes contaminated with Palmer amaranth seed in an effort to prevent additional introductions and identify other sites that should be investigated for the presence of Palmer amaranth. It is likely that none of these activities, including the possibility of eradicating the existing Palmer amaranth infestations, would be possible without the efforts of conscientious land owners whose attentive scouting activities, proactive reporting, and partnerships with the MDA have played a central role in these early detection and eradication efforts.

Palmer amaranth is a serious threat to Minnesota agriculture and nursery and landscape professionals should remain vigilant to help prevent new infestations by understanding the Palmer amaranth threat, becoming familiar with this new weed and its identifying characteristics, avoiding new introductions of Palmer amaranth through nursery and landscape activities, watching for Palmer amaranth on the lands they manage, and reporting any suspected finds to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Additional Background on the Palmer Amaranth Threat and Status in Minnesota

Palmer or Palmer’s amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) is one of many species of amaranth found in North America, but one that had not been documented in the State of Minnesota until September, 2016, when the first infestations were unfortunately confirmed in conservation plantings in Yellow Medicine and Lyon Counties in the southwestern corner of the state. A swift and sustained response by the MDA to the infestations discovered in 2016 has resulted in only a small number of plants being found in these areas in 2017 and eradication efforts continue. A similar approach is being followed for the new infestations in Douglas and Todd Counties. Although the MDA is optimistic that the current infestations can be eliminated, these finds have highlighted the Palmer amaranth threat and the need for landowners and land managers to be on the lookout for Palmer amaranth in order to catch and manage new infestations quickly and proactively in an attempt to prevent this weed invader from becoming established in the state.

Palmer amaranth is a very serious weed whose distribution has been expanding northward and eastward and a weed the agricultural community in Minnesota should be concerned about. Palmer amaranth has been spreading across the country from what is thought to be its native range in Mexico and the southwestern United States and has also been recently found in neighboring and nearby states, including Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. As an agricultural weed, Palmer amaranth is considered the most aggressive and competitive of the pigweeds, even more competitive than common/tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus), and is likely to become a serious and significant weed problem in Minnesota if it becomes established in the state.

As members of the genus Amaranthus, Palmer amaranth and its relatives are representatives of the foundation genus of the Pigweed or Amaranth Family (Amaranthaceae) which, according to Wikipedia, includes about 180 genera and 2500 species. Specifically, the genus Amaranthus includes about 60 species; of these, about 33 species are found in the United States and seven in Minnesota. Members of the genus are commonly and often interchangeably called amaranths or pigweeds. The seven species found in Minnesota include redroot pigweed (also called rough pigweed and green amaranth; Amaranthus retrofexus), tumble pigweed (also called tumbleweed; A. albus), prostrate pigweed (A. blitoides), smooth pigweed (also called slender pigweed and spleen amaranth; A. hybridus), Powell or Powell’s amaranth (also called green pigweed; A. powellii), spiny, thorny, or prickly amaranth/pigweed (Amaranthus spinosus), and common/tall waterhemp (hereafter simply referred to as waterhemp; also called rough-fruited waterhemp; A. tuberculatus; synonyms A. rudis and A. tamariscinus; common waterhemp and tall waterhemp have historically been categorized as separate species, A. rudis and A. tuberculatus, respectively, but in response to genetic similarities and hybridization between the two species, they have more recently been treated as a single species using the name A. tuberculatus by many plant taxonomists). Of these, redroot pigweed, smooth pigweed, Powell amaranth, and waterhemp are fairly similar in appearance and can be difficult to distinguish from one another. All have a branched, upright habit and can reach heights in excess of six feet. The color of the taproot (red or not) and leaf characteristics (color and shape) can also be very similar. Unfortunately, Palmer amaranth also resembles these species so understanding the differences and being on the lookout for this new threat will be critical in keeping this species from being introduced to new areas, gaining a foothold, and becoming established and a problem in Minnesota. Weed managers should become familiar with all seven species and especially Palmer amaranth and the four species it may be confused with, and especially waterhemp which it is most likely to be confused with, as the swift identification of Palmer amaranth will be critical in preventing the spread and establishment of this harmful weed in Minnesota.

Researchers continue to study Palmer amaranth, including its life cycle, spread, and management, and identification is the critical first step in managing this important weed and preventing it from becoming endemic in the state. Individual plants and populations of all five species can be quite variable as a result of genetic variability, hybridization between species, and environmental conditions, but several characteristics appear to be useful for differentiating Palmer amaranth from the other species found in Minnesota. Whether plants are pubescent (hairy) or glabrous (without hairs, smooth) is a good place to start. Redroot pigweed, Powell amaranth, and smooth pigweed all tend to have hairs on their leaves and stems and especially on younger portions of the plant. Redroot pigweed tends to be the most hairy of the three. In contrast, waterhemp and Palmer amaranth are hairless and have smooth leaves and stems.

Leaf shape and petiole length are additional characteristics that can be useful in making an accurate identification. Waterhemp leaves tend to be the most distinctive; they have a tendency to be long, narrow, and waxy and are typically longer and narrower than the other pigweeds. The leaves of the other four species are more similar to each other and tend to be egg-shaped (ovate) to diamond-shaped. The leaf arrangement of Palmer amaranth is also unique as the plants typically have a distinct, poinsettia-like rosette leaf arrangement when viewed from above. The leaves of Palmer amaranth also have very prominent white veins when viewed from underneath. The leaf veins of redroot pigweed can also sometimes be white, but remember that the leaves of redroot pigweed are rough and hairy while those of Palmer amaranth are hairless and smooth. Palmer amaranth also has long petioles, at least as long, and usually longer, than the leaves, while waterhemp has short petioles. Petiole length for the other three species is intermediate. As a consequence of these differences, if a plant has hairless stems and leaves with petioles that are longer than the leaf blade, it is likely Palmer amaranth. Finally, young plants of Palmer amaranth will often have a distinct, white to pink, v-shaped, chevron marking on their leaves which is never present on redroot pigweed, Powell amaranth, or smooth pigweed.

As for all plants, the inflorescence and individual flowers can be very helpful in identification, but pigweed flowers are very small and this makes their use in identification difficult for most casual observers and requires magnification in order for the key identifying characteristics to be seen clearly. Waterhemp tends to have a more delicate habit than the other three. Although it is often found in moister environments adjacent to lakes, stream, and wetlands, waterhemp is also commonly found in drier environments. Unlike redroot pigweed, smooth pigweed, and Powell amaranth, which are monoecious (perfect flowers or male and female flowers produced on the same plant; the latter is the case for these pigweeds), Palmer amaranth is dioecious (individual plants male or female; male and female flowers produced on separate plants). This is also a characteristic which makes the species more problematic as a weed species. It is important to note, however, that the number of male flowers produced on the monoecious pigweeds is often very limited so making this determination can be difficult. Waterhemp is also dioecious. Redroot pigweed has a short, stout, terminal inflorescence compared to the other four species and the inflorescence is quite prickly. The flower spikes/seed heads of waterhemp tend to be smooth, long and slender while those of smooth pigweed and Powel amaranth are long, thick, and prickly. The flower spikes/seed heads of Palmer amaranth tend to be the longest (typically ½ to 1½ feet long with terminal inflorescences/seed heads sometimes up to 3 feet long) and are very prickly in response to sharply-pointed bracts subtending the flowers. In all cases, more detailed identification resources should be used to ensure proper identification. As mentioned earlier, it is also important to remember that pigweeds can sometimes hybridize with each other which can make it more difficult to identify individual plants as a specific species. As a result of their similarity and familiarity to weed managers, and its ability to hybridize with Palmer amaranth, watching for waterhemp plants that seem unusual is especially advisable.

The remaining three species of Amaranthus that are commonly found in Minnesota are much easier to identify. Prostrate pigweed is easily identified by its low, mat-forming habit and, secondarily, by the presence of sharp sines at the bases of the petioles where they are attached to the stem at the nodes. Similarly, spiny amaranth also has these types of spines, but has an upright habit and is taller like the other species of Amaranthus found in Minnesota. Tumble pigweed is much branched and has a rounded form, greenish-white stems, and relatively small leaves; plants also tend to abscise at ground level when mature allowing them to be tumbled by the wind to disperse their seeds. The flowers of prostrate pigweed and tumble pigweed are also unique, being found only in small, relatively inconspicuous clusters in the leaf axils.

Many of the weedy species of Amaranthus are variously listed as being native or introduced in North America which is likely the result of historical misidentifications. Most are believed to have originated from tropical America, but some are considered native to northern Mexico and the southwestern United States and the Great Plains. Palmer amaranth is a good example; although it has been reported as being native in Wisconsin and neighboring states, it is listed as an excluded species by the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium based on the belief that the name was misapplied or there was a misidentification, as there are no records that it has been present in the state until recently. While knowing their original, native distributions and whether specific species are native to the upper Midwest or have simply become naturalized is of interest and important from a scientific and ecological perspective, it has little bearing on the importance of these species as weeds in agricultural systems. Botanists, taxonomists, and weed scientists have studied the distribution patterns and impacts of pigweeds for years and research designed to better understand and manage these species continues today.

Palmer amaranth is native to northern Mexico (Chihuahua) and the far southwestern United States (New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California), but has subsequently spread east to Georgia and Florida and north to Massachusetts, New York, Ontario (Canada), Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, and Colorado and most recently lower Michigan, Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Iowa – and now Minnesota. Outside North America, it has also spread to Europe, Asia, and Australia. Palmer amaranth seeds have likely been spread around North America and the world by agricultural activities and commerce including contaminated agricultural products like hay, cattle feed, and manure. Most recently, research has suggested that Palmer amaranth has been spread through native seed mixes contaminated with Palmer amaranth seeds that have been used for conservation and restoration purposes including Conservation Reserve Program (CRP; USDA Farm Service Agency/FSA) and Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve Program (Board of Water and Soil Resources/BWSR) plantings and other wildlife, pollinator, and cover crop plantings. Although Palmer amaranth may not persist in these habitats over the long term, even ephemeral populations may serve as a seed source for infestations on nearby disturbed lands including agricultural lands. This is unfortunate and ironic given the goal of restoration efforts and awareness and due diligence will be required to prevent this type of contamination and to avoid the introduction of Palmer amaranth to new areas by such means. To reduce the risk of introducing this Palmer amaranth and other weed species, use local seed sources, purchase certified seed, and avoid seed sources from states where Palmer amaranth is known to be present. Contaminated farm equipment and wildlife can also facilitate the movement of Palmer amaranth seeds into new areas.

Factors that make Palmer amaranth a serious weed include extended germination during the growing season, a rapid growth rate (as much as two or three inches per day), large size (6-10 feet) and significant biomass production, prolific seed production (up to 600,000 seeds per female plant), a high level of genetic diversity, environmental adaptability (including drought tolerance), superior competitiveness, and herbicide resistance (multiple modes of action) including glyphosate resistance (Roundup^® and related products). Herbicide resistance has also been observed in other species of Amaranthus including waterhemp, redroot pigweed, Powell amaranth, and smooth pigweed and the development of herbicide resistance by these, as well as other weed species, is a significant and growing concern. Interestingly, with the exception of herbicide resistance, many of the same characteristics that have enabled the pigweeds to become serious weeds have been viewed positively for selections of Amaranthus grown for food purposes.

As every weed manager should know, reliance on a single mode of action has the potential to be problematic when it comes to the development of herbicide resistance and herbicide resistant weeds and weed populations. The widespread and growing reliance on glyphosate resistant, “Roundup Ready” crops, mainly agronomic crops including corn, soybeans, and cotton, but also Kentucky bluegrass, ignores this basic principle and we are now facing the consequences as an increasing number of weed species, including Palmer amaranth, are becoming resistant to glyphosate and other herbicides with various modes of action. In the case of Palmer amaranth, and waterhemp, enhanced outcrossing as a consequence of the species being dioecious results in the rapid spread of inherited characteristics like herbicide resistance. As a result, Palmer amaranth has become a leading example of herbicide resistance and its negative and costly consequences. Pesticide applicators must recognize, understand, and respect the threat posed by pesticide resistance – the ability of pests, including weeds, to evolve and develop resistance to pesticides, including herbicides, as a result of exposure to pesticides under field conditions – and must select and apply pesticides properly to help prevent the development of pesticide resistance.

Understanding the life history of weeds is also important in developing effective management strategies. All of the pigweeds are alternate-leaved, tap-rooted annuals. Flowering typically begins in June or July and continues through October. The inflorescence is typically represented by dense, terminal and/or axillary clusters of small flowers subtended by bristly, green bracts (a modified, specialized leaf associated with reproductive structures like a flower or inflorescence). Depending on species, the flower clusters vary in size from small to large, are spike or catkin-like, and are upright and stiff or variously drooping. The fruit is most often described as an urticle and sometimes a capsule or an achene (or akene). An urticle is a small bladder-like, one-seeded, indehiscent (doesn’t open to release seeds when mature), but occasionally dehiscent (opens to release seeds when mature), fruit with a papery, inflated covering (pericarp) derived from a single carpel; similar to an achene, but with a loose pericarp (the pericarp not in close contact with the seed as it is for an achene). An achene is, however, always indehiscent. The dehiscent nature of the fruits of some species is likely the reason why the fruit is sometimes described as a capsule and specifically a pyxis (a type of capsule that opens by a lid); a capsule is, however, typically derived from two or more carpels and contains several to many seeds. Mature seeds are small, rounded (sometimes slightly oval or flattened), shiny, and dark reddish-brown or black. They are eaten by upland birds and rodents, and waterfowl, and were commonly collected and eaten and processed into flour by the indigenous peoples of North America. The young leaves and stems, taproots, and seeds of several species of Amaranthus are also eaten by people and selections have been made for seed production as a food crop and for flour production. Several species are also important horticultural plants and are planted in gardens and containers. The pigweeds can sometimes accumulate nitrates and become toxic to cattle (bloating) and other livestock.

Pigweeds are commonly found in waste places, agricultural and fallow fields, pastures, railroad right-of-ways, roadsides, shorelands, and other disturbed areas and habitats and can be problematic as weeds in agronomic (including corn, soybeans, and cotton) and horticultural crops (including vegetables, field and container nurseries, orchards, and vineyards), prairie/savanna restorations, and landscapes including turf (rarely; mainly during establishment from seed). In general, sunny, fertile conditions are preferred by most species, but plants will tolerate a variety of soils and moisture conditions.

Early detection and eradication will be the keys to preventing the spread and establishment of Palmer amaranth in Minnesota. The hope of keeping Palmer amaranth from becoming a serious weed problem in Minnesota will depend on the awareness and vigilance of agricultural producers and land managers, including nursery and landscape professionals, and a commitment to do everything possible to prevent the introduction of this species into new areas across the state. This is true for all non-native species that have the potential to harm agricultural production and native ecosystems. Agricultural production and distribution systems that include best management practices designed to prevent the introduction of new weed species, regular scouting, proper identification, and a quick response to eradicate pioneer populations and prevent seed production will be required to prevent the establishment and spread of Palmer amaranth in the state. If pioneer weeds and populations are not identified and seed production is not stopped, Palmer amaranth, including glyphosate resistant populations, will become a serious threat across the state. As of this writing, the source of the Palmer amaranth infestation found in Yellow Medicine County remains unknown and it is hoped this find represents a singular infestation that can be eradicated. From a management perspective, new infestations should be eradicated quickly to prevent seed production and dispersal followed by pre-emergence herbicides known to be effective on Palmer amaranth and timely (plants less than 3” tall) post-emergence herbicide applications (where feasible as needed and remembering to rotate the modes of action of the herbicides used; using herbicide combinations with unrelated modes of action can also be effective in preventing herbicide resistance) and other methods like mowing and crop rotation.

The fear that Palmer amaranth would find its way to Minnesota has unfortunately been realized. Still, controlling existing populations and preventing new infestations remains an important goal and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture is fully engaged and believes eradication of the existing infestations is still possible. To this end, Palmer amaranth has been listed as a Prohibited-Eradicate Noxious Weed and a Prohibited Weed Seed in Minnesota. This means all of the above and below ground parts of any Palmer amaranth plants must be destroyed (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/weedcontrol/noxiouslist.aspx) and no Palmer amaranth seed is allowed in any seed offered for sale in the state including all agricultural, vegetable, flower, tree, shrub, native grass, and forb seed sold in Minnesota (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/licensing/licensetypes/seed.aspx; http://www.mda.state.mn.us/licensing/licensetypes/~/media/Files/licensing/seed/proresweedseeds.pdf). In addition the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, with legislative support, has a plan that will hopefully result in the eradication of Palmer amaranth from the state and prevent future introductions.

If plants suspected as being Palmer amaranth are found in Minnesota, more technical identification aids or a weed specialist should be consulted to confirm the identification and the findings reported to your county agricultural inspector, University of Minnesota Extension personnel, or the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (email/arest.the.pest@state.mn.us; phone/1-888-545-6684). Effective weed control is an important activity for growers and landscape managers who should keep themselves up-to-date concerning potential, new weed threats and management practices. Be on the lookout for Palmer amaranth in your fields (including conservation and prairie plantings) and other production areas, and in managed landscapes and lesser managed areas adjacent to such areas, and be proactive in helping to prevent new introductions of Palmer amaranth to help keep this weed from becoming established in Minnesota.

Todd and Douglas County news releases:

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2017. Palmer Amaranth Found in Todd County. News Release; October 13, 2017. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/releases/2017/nr20171013amaranth.aspx

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2017. Palmer Amaranth Confirmed in Douglas County. News Release; October 27, 2017. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/releases/2017/nr20171027palmer.aspx

For additional information about Palmer amaranth, pigweeds in general, and the identification and management of Palmer amaranth, consult the following selected references:

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2017. Factsheet: Palmer Amaranth in Minnesota. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/weedcontrol/noxiouslist/palmeramaranth/palmeramaranthfs.aspx

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2016. Palmer Amaranth Detected in Minnesota. News Release; September 22, 2016. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/releases/2016/nr20160922palmeram.aspx

Behnken, L., F. Breitenbach, J. Gunsolus, P. Bongard, and L. Stahl. 2016. Palmer Amaranth: A New Weed Threat to Watch Out for. University of Minnesota Extension, Minnesota Crop News; August 23, 2016. http://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2016/08/palmer-amaranth-new-weed-threat-to.html

Hartzler, B. 2016. Palmer Amaranth in Iowa: What We Know. Iowa State University, Integrated Crop Management News; August 19, 2016. http://crops.extension.iastate.edu/cropnews/2016/08/palmer-amaranth-iowa-what-we-know

College of Agriculture Life Sciences and Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. 2016. Palmer Amaranth Now Identified in at Least Nine Iowa Counties. Iowa State University, Integrated Crop News; August 15, 2016. http://crops.extension.iastate.edu/cropnews/2016/08/palmer-amaranth-now-identified-least-nine-iowa-counties (Incudes a video describing Palmer amaranth and its identifying characteristics)

Loux, M. 2016. New Palmer Amaranth Finds: We're Mowing Down Soybean Fields, Folks. Ohio State University, OSU Weed Management; August 18, 2016. http://u.osu.edu/osuweeds/2016/08/18/new-palmer-amaranth-finds-were-mowing-down-soybean-fields-folks/

University of Minnesota Extension. 2013. Palmer Amaranth Confirmed in Iowa What Does it Mean for Minnesota. http://blog.lib.umn.edu/umnext/news/2013/09/palmer-amaranth-confirmed-in-iowa-what-does-it-mean-for-minnesota-1.php

Davis, V.M. 2011. Palmer Amaranth is in Wisconsin Crop Production Fields. University of Wisconsin Integrated Pest and Crop Management (IPCM) Program, Wisconsin Crop Manager Newsletter; November 15, 2011. http://ipcm.wisc.edu/blog/2011/11/palmer-amaranth-is-in-wisconsin-crop-production-fields

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plants Database. Plant Profile – Amaranthus L. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=AMARA

Mosyakin, S.L. and K.R. Robertson. 2004. Amaranthus L. Flora of North America 4:405-406. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=101257

Mosyakin, S.L. and K.R. Robertson. 2004. Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson. Flora of North America 4:418. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242415653

Wikipedia: Amaranthaceae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranthaceae (accessed 9/15/2016).

Culpepper, A.S., T.L. Grey, W.K. Vencill, J.M. Kichler, T.M. Webster, S.M. Brown, A.C. York, J.W. Davis, and W.W. Hanna. 2006. Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Confirmed in Georgia. Weed Science 54(4):620-626. http://wssajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WS-06-001R.1 (abstract only)

Sprague, C. 2011. Palmer Amaranth: A New Invasive Weed to Watch for in Michigan. http://www.michigansoybean.org/Media/MichiganSoybean/Downloads/MSPC/Palmer-Amaranth/Palmer-Amaranth-A-New-Invasive-Weed-To-Watch-For-In-MI.pdf

Pratt, D.B., M.D.K. Owen, and L.G. Clark. 1999. Identification of the Weedy Pigweeds and Waterhemps of Iowa. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/pm1786.pdf (an excellent comparative identification reference for weedy amaranth species)

DuPont Pioneer Agronomy Sciences. 2013. Palmer Amaranth in the North Central U.S. https://www.pioneer.com/CMRoot/Pioneer/US/Non_Searchable/agronomy/cropfocus_pdf/palmer_amaranth.pdf

Sprague, C. 2011. Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth in Southwest Michigan. http://anrcom.msu.edu/uploads/files/122/4-28Palmer%20Glyphosate%20ConfirmationCHRISTY.pdf 

Johnson, B. and T. Legleiter. 2013. Identifying Palmer Amaranth in the Field. Purdue Extension (video; July 17, 2013). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVbgPGg0GO0&feature=youtu.be

Virginia Tech Weed Identification Guide. Palmer Amaranth: Amaranthus palmeri. http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/amapa.htm

Briton, N.L. and A. Brown. 1970 (Second Edition). An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. Volume II. Dover Publications, New York, NY.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 1971. Common Weeds of the United States. Dover Publications, New York, NY.

Uva, R.H., J.C. Neal, and J.M. DiTomaso. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Stubbendieck, J., G.Y. Friisoe, and M.R. Bolick. 1995 (Second Edition). Weeds of Nebraska and the Great Plains. Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Lincoln, NE.

Armstrong, J. 2011. Look-A-Like Weeds: Pigweeds. Oklahoma State University Extension; Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Extension News (June 9, 2011). http://cotton.okstate.edu/weed-resistance-management/look-a-like-weeds.pdf

Legleiter, T. and B. Johnson. 2013. Scout and Identify Pigweed Species Now. Purdue Extension/Weed Science (May 30, 2013). https://ag.purdue.edu/btny/weedscience/Documents/Palmer_ID.pdf

Legleiter, T. and B. Johnson. 2013. Palmer Amaranth Biology, Identification, and Management. Purdue Extension (April, 2013). http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/WS/WS-51-W.pdf

Legleiter, T. and B. Johnson. 2013. Palmer Amaranth Identification. Purdue Extension (video; May 21, 2013). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNgRvvnPQJ8

Schonbeck, M. 2013. Weed Profile: Pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.). eXtension (August 6, 2013). http://www.extension.org/pages/65208/weed-profile:-pigweeds-amaranthus-spp

Bensch, C.N., M.J. Horak, and D. Peterson. 2003. Interference of Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer Amaranth (A. palmeri), and Common Waterhemp (A. rudis) in Soybean. Weed Science 51(1):37-43. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4046623?uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102749864953

To comment on this research update, suggest research topics of interest, or pass along a piece of research-based information that might be of interest to your industry colleagues, please email us at Research@MNLA.biz.

Just a little more than a month after emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis) infestations were identified outside previously quarantined areas in five other Wisconsin counties (Chippewa, Green Lake, Marinette, Waupaca, and Waushara Counties) and one Minnesota county (Martin County), EAB has been identified in Marathon County in north central Wisconsin.  The new infestation was found by a tree care professional on private property located along the Wisconsin River in the Town of Rib Mountain just west of Wausau, Wisconsin.  In response to this new EAB infestation, Marathon County has been added to the list of quarantined counties in the state by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP).  Marathon County is located in central Wisconsin and is bordered by Wood and Portage Counties, previously infested and quarantined for EAB, to the south and contiguous with the quarantined counties in the southern half of the state.  Although scattered infestations have been found in the northern regions of the state, EAB has not yet been documented in the adjacent counties to the north, east, and west of Marathon County.  As we all know, EAB is a serious threat to ash trees growing in designed landscapes and native ecosystems and Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) members located in Wisconsin and that work in Wisconsin will want to be aware of this expansion of the EAB quarantine.

The announcement of the Marathon County infestation and quarantine are available on the DATCP website at https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/News_Media/EABMarathon.aspx.  A list of confirmed EAB infestations in Wisconsin by county, municipality, and date of confirmation is also available on the DATCP website at https://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/articleassets/ConfirmedEABFindsInWisconsin.pdf as is a map of the Wisconsin counties quarantined for EAB at https://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/articleassets/WI_EAB_Quarantine.pdf.

Including Marathon County, 47 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties (65%), including all of the counties in the southern half of the state, are now under quarantine for EAB.  Although this is a depressing statistic, it is important to note that, with the exception of the far southeastern corner of the state and a few of the counties bordering Minnesota in the southwestern part of the state, most of Wisconsin, including most of the area in the quarantined counties, remains EAB-free, as a majority of the quarantined counties only have small, isolated EAB infestations.  The same is also generally true for Minnesota where only 16 of the state’s 87 counties (18%), almost exclusively located in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and several counties in southeastern Minnesota, are currently under full or partial quarantine in an attempt to slow the spread of EAB in the state.  See the link to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) website below to view a map of the EAB infestations and quarantined areas in Minnesota.

On the national level, it should be noted that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has just added the State of South Carolina to the federal EAB quarantine list (October 13, 2017).  The federal quarantine order is available along with previous federal quarantine notices at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/planthealth/eab_quarantine or directly at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/emerald_ash_b/downloads/DA-2017-32.pdf

It cannot be overemphasized that infested firewood is considered a primary vector of EAB and may not be moved out of a quarantined county.  Better yet, firewood should not be moved around the state or even within an infested county; firewood may only be moved outside quarantined areas if it has been heat-treated to state standards and certified by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture under a compliance agreement.  Additional information about firewood in Minnesota is available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/firewood.aspx and http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/firewood/firewood-dealers.aspx.  The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources also has firewood restrictions (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/firewood/index.html).

History of EAB in North America and Minnesota

Native to east-central Asia, emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis; Coleoptera: Buprestidae) was first documented in North America in 2002 in southeastern Michigan (Detroit area) and has since spread to 30 states in the Eastern, Midwestern (including Minnesota), and Mountain regions of the United States and the far southern portions of two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec).  Capable of attacking healthy trees, hundreds of millions of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) have already been killed in infested areas and all three species of ash native to the Upper Midwest and Minnesota are susceptible to attack – white ash (Fraxinus americana), black ash (Fraxinus nigra; most common in northern Minnesota and the most numerous species in the state), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica; also called red ash; the most widely distributed species in the state and the most commonly planted species in designed landscapes).  As a result, it is estimated that as many as one billion ash trees could be at risk in Minnesota alone.

In Minnesota, EAB was first documented in Ramsey County in 2009 (May); EAB was also confirmed in Hennepin and Houston Counties the same year and all three counties were subsequently quarantined by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA).  Winona County was added to the list of quarantined counties in 2011.  Since then, the destructive, non-native emerald ash borer beetle has continued to spread to new areas and, as of this writing, 16 of Minnesota’s 87 counties (18%) are currently subject to complete or partial quarantines in an attempt to prevent the spread of emerald ash borer in the state.  Fifteen (15) counties are covered by complete quarantines including Anoka (2015), Chisago (2015), Dakota (2014), Dodge (2016), Fillmore (2015), Goodhue (2017), Hennepin (2009), Houston (2009), Martin (2017), Olmsted (2014), Ramsey (2009), Scott (2015), Wabasha (2016), Washington (2015), and Winona (2011) Counties.  A partial quarantine (established in September 2016 and formalized in March 2017) is also in effect for southeastern St. Louis County.

Originally the quarantine in St. Louis County was limited to Park Point in the City of Duluth (November 2015), but was subsequently expanded to include the southeastern portion of St. Louis County including the entire City of Duluth in response to additional EAB finds.  Superior, WI (Douglas County), is also infested and was quarantined in 2013.  The remainder of St. Louis County is not currently under quarantine.  Although the infestations in Duluth, MN, and Superior, WI, are in areas where winter temperatures tend to be moderated by Lake Superior, these infestations are close to the larger populations of ash trees in the colder, more forested areas of both states.  As a result, depending on the actual winter temperatures experienced, we may soon learn whether these infestations will be able to expand and affect ash trees in the adjacent, colder areas where laboratory studies have suggested EAB populations may not be able to reach tree-killing levels as a result of the winter temperatures typically experienced in these regions.  With the exception of the City of Duluth and the recent find in Martin County, the current EAB infestations in Minnesota are limited to the Twin Cities metropolitan area and the southeastern corner of the state.

Fortunately the spread of EAB in Minnesota has been slower than what has been experienced in other infested areas and the new finds in Dodge, Martin, and Wabasha Counties, and the expanded quarantines in Goodhue and St. Louis Counties are the only new areas that have been added to the Minnesota EAB quarantine in 2016 and so far this year (2017).  Of course, this may change as this is a time of year when new finds are common as a result of woodpecker activity focused on EAB larvae in infested trees.  Although the spread of EAB and the number of trees that have been lost in Minnesota have been atypical compared to the more easterly infestations in other states, it is possible that EAB is beginning to spread more quickly.  Beginning with the first EAB finds in Minnesota in 2009, six (6) counties were quarantined during the first six years (2009-2014) of the Minnesota invasion, but, including the most recent find in Martin County in August of this year, quarantines have subsequently been added in ten (10) additional counties since then (2015-August 2017).  Whether this trend continues remains to be seen.

Emerald ash borer is also present in Iowa (mainly the eastern and southern counties) and a few counties in east-central Nebraska.  The Minnesota and Nebraska infestations, plus infestations in a small number of counties just across the state borders in eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and an isolated infestation in Boulder County, CO, are currently the western-most infestations in North America.  In Canada, the EAB infestation is currently limited to extreme south-central Quebec and southeastern Ontario and an isolated infestation in the Thunder Bay, Ontario, area approximately 45 miles northeast of the Minnesota border.  The introduction of EAB in North America, which likely occurred in the early 1990s, was a human-mediated event and, more recently, the long-distance and initially-isolated infestations of EAB in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, the Duluth/Superior area, Rhinelander (WI), the Kansas City (MO/KS) metropolitan area, and the southwestern Arkansas/northern Louisiana/northeast Texas region, and in Boulder County (CO), were almost certainly human-mediated introductions.  Along with other control efforts, all concerned must be constantly diligent and take great care to avoid moving EAB-infested materials, including firewood, to non-infested areas to slow the spread of this devastating insect pest.

Selected Links to Additional EAB Information

General information about the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) emerald ash borer (EAB) program and links to more specific information about EAB in Minnesota are available on the MDA website at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.aspx.

The text of the Minnesota EAB quarantine (Version 11; May 9, 2017) is available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab/eabquarantine.aspx.  The quarantine addresses the use and movement of regulated materials which include the insect itself (all life stages); all plants and plant parts of the genus Fraxinus, including nursery stock, scion and bud wood, logs, branches, stumps, and roots, chips and mulch (composted or not); firewood of any non-coniferous species, and other materials deemed to be a risk for the spread of EAB by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.

A new, interactive, searchable, ArcGIS online map of specific EAB finds and generally infested, quarantined, and biocontrol areas in Minnesota is available at https://mnag.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=63ebb977e2924d27b9ef0787ecedf6e9.

A summary of the status of EAB in Minnesota, along with information about some of the activities being pursued by the MDA to better understand and track EAB in the state, are available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/invasivesunit/~/media/Files/plants/invasives/statusrpt-eab.pdf.

Additional information about EAB in Wisconsin is available at http://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/article.jsp?topicid=20.

And finally, additional information regarding the status of EAB in North America is available on the Emerald Ash Borer Information Network website at http://emeraldashborer.info and from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/emerald-ash-borer.

Nearly six months after the last new infestation in Minnesota was confirmed in early March, several new infestations of emerald ash borer (EAB) outside previously quarantined areas have recently been reported and confirmed in Minnesota and in Wisconsin; one in Minnesota and five in Wisconsin.  The latest find in Minnesota is in Martin County on the Iowa border in south-central Minnesota (confirmed on August 22 and reported on August 23).  In response to this new EAB infestation, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has added Martin County to the list of quarantined counties in the state as an emergency quarantine with a formal quarantine to follow.  Including Martin County, 16 counties, almost exclusively located in east-central and southeastern Minnesota, are now under full or partial quarantine to slow the spread of EAB in the state.  Sadly, because the Martin County infestation is removed from the other known EAB infestations in Minnesota and Iowa, the MDA believes the Martin County infestation is the result of someone moving infested ash as firewood or in some other form.  Infested firewood is considered a primary vector of EAB and should not be moved around the state; burn firewood where it is 

The announcement of the Martin County EAB find and resulting quarantine can be accessed on the MDA website at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/releases/2017/nr20170823eabmartin.aspx.  The proposed quarantine language for Martin County is also available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/eab.  For those interested, a public meeting to discuss the discovery of EAB and the EAB quarantine in Martin County will be held on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Martin County Courthouse (201 Lake Avenue, Fairmont, MN 56031; Room 103).  Additional information is available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/releases/2017/nr20170830eabmartin.aspx.

In addition to the Martin County infestation in Minnesota, five new EAB infestations have recently been confirmed in Wisconsin (August 22-30).  As reported by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), the affected counties include Chippewa, Green Lake, Marinette, Waupaca, and Waushara Counties.  With the exception of Chippewa County (northwestern Wisconsin) and Marinette County (northeastern Wisconsin), these counties are located in east-central Wisconsin and are surrounded by counties with confirmed EAB infestations.  With these new finds, 46 Wisconsin counties, including the entire southern half of the state, are now under quarantine for EAB.  It is, however, important to note that, with the exception of the far southeastern corner of the state and a few of the counties bordering Minnesota in the southwestern part of the state, most of Wisconsin remains EAB-free, as most of the quarantined counties only have small, isolated infestations.  The same is also generally true for Minnesota.  Additional information about EAB in Wisconsin is available at https://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/article.jsp?topicid=25.

History of EAB in North America and Minnesota

Native to east-central Asia, emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis; Coleoptera: Buprestidae) was first documented in North America in 2002 in southeastern Michigan (Detroit area) and has since spread to 30 states in the Eastern, Midwestern (including Minnesota), and Mountain regions of the United States and the far southern portions of two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Capable of attacking healthy trees, hundreds of millions of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) have already been killed in infested areas and all three species of ash native to the Upper Midwest and Minnesota are susceptible to attack – white ash (Fraxinus americana), black ash (Fraxinus nigra; most common in northern Minnesota and the most numerous species in the state), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica; also called red ash; the most widely distributed species in the state and the most commonly planted species in designed landscapes).  As a result, it is estimated that as many as one billion ash trees could be at risk in Minnesota alone.

In Minnesota, EAB was first documented in Ramsey County in 2009 (May); EAB was also confirmed in Hennepin and Houston Counties the same year and all three counties were subsequently quarantined by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA).  Winona County was added to the list of quarantined counties in 2011.  Since then, this destructive, non-native beetle has continued to spread to new areas and, as of this writing, 16 of Minnesota’s 87 counties (18%) are subject to complete or partial quarantines in an attempt to prevent the spread of emerald ash borer in the state.  Fifteen (15) counties are covered by complete quarantines including Anoka (2015), Chisago (2015), Dakota (2014), Dodge (2016), Fillmore (2015), Goodhue (2017), Hennepin (2009), Houston (2009), Martin (2017), Olmsted (2014), Ramsey (2009), Scott (2015), Wabasha (2016), Washington (2015), and Winona (2011) Counties.  A partial quarantine (established in September 2016 and formalized in March 2017) is also in effect for southeastern St. Louis County.

Originally the quarantine in St. Louis County was limited to Park Point in the City of Duluth (November 2015), but was subsequently expanded to include the southeastern portion of St. Louis County including the entire City of Duluth in response to additional EAB finds.  Superior, WI (Douglas County), is also infested and was quarantined in 2013.  The remainder of St. Louis County is not currently under quarantine.  Noting that the infestations in Duluth, MN, and Superior, WI, are in areas where winter temperatures tend to be moderated by Lake Superior, these infestations are close to the larger populations of ash trees in the colder, more forested areas of both states.  As a result, depending on the actual winter temperatures experienced, we may soon learn whether these infestations will be able to expand and affect ash trees in the adjacent, colder areas where laboratory studies have suggested EAB populations may not be able to reach tree-killing levels as a result of the winter temperatures typically experienced in these regions.  It should also be noted that, with the exception of the City of Duluth and the recent find in Martin County, the current EAB infestations in Minnesota are limited to the Twin Cities metropolitan area and the southeastern corner of the state.

Fortunately the spread of EAB in Minnesota has been slower than what has been experienced in other infested areas and the new finds in Dodge and Wabasha County, and the expanded quarantines in Goodhue and St. Louis Counties are the only new areas that have been added to the Minnesota EAB quarantine in 2016 and so far this year (2017).  Of course, this may change as this is a time of year when new finds are common as a result of woodpecker activity focused on EAB larvae in infested trees.  Although the spread of EAB and the number of trees that have been lost in Minnesota have been atypical compared to the more easterly infestations in other states, it is possible that EAB is beginning to spread more quickly.  Beginning with the first EAB finds in Minnesota in 2009, six (6) counties were quarantined during the first six years (2009-2014) of the Minnesota invasion, but, including the most recent find in Martin County, quarantines have subsequently been added in ten (10) additional counties since then (2015-August 2017).  Whether this trend continues remains to be seen and larger, healthy, ash trees that have noteworthy landscape value and provide valuable social and ecosystem services (e.g., shading and temperature reduction, reduced stormwater runoff, cleaner air, improved human health and well-being, and carbon sequestration) in landscape settings can be effectively protected with properly-applied systemic insecticides.

In addition to the Douglas County (Superior), WI, infestation, and the new isolated infestations in Chippewa and Marinette Counties, EAB infestations have also been found in other areas in Wisconsin.  These areas include an isolated infestation in Sawyer County (the neighboring county to the southeast of Douglas County), an isolated infestation in Oneida County (Rhinelander; another cold hardiness test location in USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 3), and all of the counties in the southern half of the state south of a line from Hastings, MN, in the west to Green Bay and the Door Peninsula in the east and including all of the border counties with Minnesota (Buffalo, Trempealeau, La Crosse, and Vernon).  Including the most recent detections, 46 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties (64%), including all of the counties in the southern half of the state, have documented EAB infestations and are under quarantine.  The initial confirmation of EAB in Wisconsin was in Washington County, located in the southeastern corner of the state, in 2008 (August).  Emerald ash borer is also present in Iowa (mainly the eastern and southern counties) and a few counties in east-central Nebraska.  The Minnesota and Nebraska infestations, plus infestations in a small number of counties just across the state borders in eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and an isolated infestation in Boulder County, CO, are currently the western-most infestations in North America.  In Canada, the EAB infestation is currently limited to extreme south-central Quebec and southeastern Ontario and an isolated infestation in the Thunder Bay, Ontario, area approximately 45 miles northeast of the Minnesota border.  The introduction of EAB in North America, which likely occurred in the early 1990s, was a human-mediated event and, more recently, the long-distance and initially-isolated infestations of EAB in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, the Duluth/Superior area, Rhinelander (WI), the Kansas City (MO/KS) metropolitan area, and the southwestern Arkansas/northern Louisiana/northeast Texas region, and in Boulder County (CO), were almost certainly human-mediated introductions.  Along with other control efforts, all concerned must be constantly diligent and take great care to avoid moving EAB-infested materials, including firewood, to non-infested areas to slow the spread of this devastating insect pest.

Selected Links to Additional EAB Information

General information about the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) emerald ash borer (EAB) program and links to more specific information about EAB in Minnesota are available on the MDA website at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.aspx.

The text of the Minnesota EAB quarantine (Version 11; May 9, 2017) is available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab/eabquarantine.aspx.  The quarantine addresses the use and movement of regulated materials which include the insect itself (all life stages); all plants and plant parts of the genus Fraxinus, including nursery stock, scion and bud wood, logs, branches, stumps, and roots, chips and mulch (composted or not); firewood of any non-coniferous species, and other materials deemed to be a risk for the spread of EAB by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.

A new ArcGIS, interactive, searchable, online map of specific EAB finds and generally infested, quarantined, and biocontrol areas in Minnesota is available at https://mnag.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=63ebb977e2924d27b9ef0787ecedf6e9.

A summary of the status of EAB in Minnesota, along with information about some of the activities being pursued by the MDA to better understand and track EAB in the state, are available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/invasivesunit/~/media/Files/plants/invasives/statusrpt-eab.pdf.

A map of the Wisconsin counties quarantined for EAB and a list of confirmed, EAB infestations by location in Wisconsin are available at https://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/articleassets/WI_EAB_Quarantine.pdf and https://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/articleassets/ConfirmedEABFindsInWisconsin.pdf, respectively.

And finally, additional information regarding the status of EAB in North America is available on the Emerald Ash Borer Information Network website at http://emeraldashborer.info and from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/emerald-ash-borer.