Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:31:55.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program in North Carolina peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George H. Scott,
Shawn D. Askew,
John W. Wilcut and
Andrew C. Bennett
George H. Scott
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Andrew C. Bennett
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at four locations in North Carolina in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate a computer program, Herbicide Application Decision Support System (HADSS™), for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed management systems included metolachlor or ethalfluralin preplant-incorporated (PPI) used alone or in combination with diclosulam preemergence (PRE) or flumioxazin PRE. These herbicide combinations were used alone, followed by (fb) postemergence (POST) herbicides recommended by HADSS™ or fb a standard POST program of paraquat plus bentazon early postemergence (EPOST) fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST. The standard POST herbicide system and HADSS™ POST recommendations were also used without soil-applied herbicides. Ethalfluralin PPI alone controlled large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) better than metolachlor PPI. Combinations of metolachlor or ethalfluralin PPI with either diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE provided equivalent control of all weeds evaluated except yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). The addition of diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE to systems containing metolachlor or ethalfluralin PPI always improved control of ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and yellow nutsedge and improved yield and net returns in 15 of 16 comparisons where no POST herbicides were used. For systems that used diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE, the HADSS™ POST and standard POST herbicide systems improved yield in 4 of 12 and 2 of 12 comparisons, respectively, compared with similar systems that did not use diclosulam or flumioxazin. However, in systems using either HADSS™ POST or the standard POST system, yield was always improved when compared with metolachlor or ethalfluralin PPI alone. HADSS™ POST provided equal or higher weed control, peanut yield, and net returns when compared with the standard POST herbicide system.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazonethalfluralinmetolachlorparaquativyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 7’ and ‘NC 10C’Computer decision aidsHERB

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2002, pp. 91 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1998. Summary of Annual Ownership Costs, Performance Rates, and Hourly Operation Costs by Machines, 1998 Field Crop Budgets. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 3 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Integrated Pest Management Peanut Scouting Manual. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina and Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. AG-461. 24 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001a. Strongarm Herbicide Label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. 3 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Valor Herbicide Label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA Corp. 3 p.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999a. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:771–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999b. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yields in eight Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402–405.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Grichar, W. J., et al. 2000. Strongarm and Dual Magnum combinations for weed control in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:36–37.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 32:584–591.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 1999. 1999 outlook and situation. Pages 1–4 In 1999 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206–249 In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:88.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Porter, B. L., Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., Grichar, W. J., Prostko, E. P., and Lemon, R. G. 2000. Weed management in Texas peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:35.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Page 37 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1992. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 6:108–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1986. Postemergence grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 34:587–590.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1987. Herbicide combinations in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 1:290–293.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Dotray, P. A., and Sestak, D. C. 1999. Diclosulam for weed control in Texas peanut. Peanut Sci. 26:23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Sestak, D. C. 2000. Effect of adjuvants on control of nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus) by imazapic and imazethapyr. Crop Prot. 19:461–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Coble, H. D., Brandenburg, R. L., and Bailey, J. E. 1998. Relationship of weed populations and HERB in selected North Carolina peanut fields. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 51:215.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and Spears, J. F. 1997. Peanut production practices. Pages 7–19 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 1997 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. AG-331.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Fortner, L. D. 1994. Utility of clomazone for annual grass and broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 8:23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and York, A. C. 2001. Weed management in peanuts. Pages 30–68 In Jordan, D. L., ed. Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. AG-331.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 1998. Validation of HERB computer decision aid for peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:216.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., and MacDonald, G. E. 2000. Weed management systems for control of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:33.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Bridges, D. C., Woodruff, J. W., Murphy, T. R., and Berry, D. J. 1995. Expert system evaluation and implementation for soybean (Glycine max) weed management. Weed Technol. 5:535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Two approaches to weed control decision-aid software. Weed Technol. 5:445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, T. R., Bridges, D. C., MacDonald, G. A., Brecke, B. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Coble, H. D. 1998. HERB User's Guide for Soybeans and Peanuts. Griffen, GA: The Georgia Station. 19 p.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Lemon, R. G., and Whitney, R. A. 1998. Weed control in peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:59.Google Scholar
Rankins, A. Jr., Shaw, D. R., and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. HERB and MSU-HERB validation for soybean (Glycine max) weed control in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 12:88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. L. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Eastin, E. F. 1995a. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr and metolachlor. Weed Technol. 9:807–812.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. Toxicity of foliar and/or soil applied AC 263,222 to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (C. esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Sci. 42:398–402.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wiley, G. L. 1995b. AC 263,222 and imazethapyr rates and mixtures for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:801–806.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001b. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001a. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:360–364.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Rankins, A. Jr., Ruscoe, J. T., and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Field validation of weed control recommendations from HERB and SWC herbicide recommendation models. Weed Technol. 12:78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swann, C. W. 2000. Weed management in peanut with diclosulam and imazapic. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:35–36.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. 1988. Relative tolerance of peanuts to alachlor and metolachlor. Peanut Sci. 15:53–56.Google Scholar
White, A. D. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Validation for HERB use in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:73–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:416–420.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1997. Summary of flumioxazin performance in southeastern peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:7.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. 1999. Pages 627–661 In Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. 2001. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Richburg, J. S. III. 1994. V-53482 systems with bentazon + paraquat or AC 263,222 for Georgia peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:32.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G. L., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 44:615–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Swann, C. W. 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558–562.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Patterson, M. G. 1987a. Economic assessment of weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:433–437.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987b. Economics of weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivations. Weed Sci. 35:711–715.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995b. The biology and management of weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207–244 In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995a. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. Pages 343–400 In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:177–205.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Coble, H. D., and Modena, S. A. 1991. HERB: decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 1990. Effects of (NH4)2SO4 and BCH 81508S on efficacy of sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 4:76–80.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Grichar, W. J. 1993. Interaction of 2,4-DB with postemergence graminicides. Peanut Sci. 20:57–61.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., Jordan, D. L., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1995. Efficacy of imazethapyr in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) as affected by time of application. Weed Sci. 43:107–116.Google Scholar
Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. H. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. Pages 458–487 In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar