Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T21:31:06.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Weed Control Systems Without Dinoseb for Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut,
Glenn R. Wehtje,
Tracy A. Cole,
T. Vint Hicks and
John A. McGuire
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Tracy A. Cole
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
T. Vint Hicks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
John A. McGuire
Affiliation:
Res. Data Analysis and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Postemergence treatments utilizing various combinations of fluazifop-P, paraquat, and 2,4-DB were compared to a preplant-incorporated (PPI) application of benefin followed by a ground-cracking application of alachlor and dinoseb plus naptalam and a postemergence application of 2,4-DB for weed control, peanut yield, and net economic return to land, overhead, and management. The greatest peanut yields (3-yr average of 4510 kg/ha) and net returns (3-yr average of $521/ha) were provided by a postemergence system that utilized one ground-cracking and one postemergence application of paraquat and one postemergence application of fluazifop-P and 2,4-DB. Seven postemergence systems provided equivalent or greater yield and net returns than the PPI and dinoseb plus naptalam system. Fresh weight reductions of Texas panicum, sicklepod, Florida beggarweed, and pitted morningglory from postemergence weed control systems were equivalent to reductions obtained from the PPI and dinoseb plus naptalam system. The addition of paraquat and 2,4-DB to the PPI and dinoseb plus naptalam system improved the 3-yr average peanut yield and net economic return by 510 kg/ha and $136/ha, respectively, compared to the same system without paraquat and 2,4-DB.

Keywords

Fluazifop-P, (R)-2-[4-[[5-trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanic acidparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionbenefin, N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminealachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamidedinoseb, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitrophenolnaptalam, 2-[(1-naphthalenylamino)carbonyl]benzoic acid2,4-DB, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidTexas panicum, (Panicum texanum Buckl. ♯3 PANTE)sicklepod, (Cassia obtusifolia L. ♯ CASOB)Florida beggarweed, (Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC ♯ DEDTO)pitted morningglory, (Ipomoea lacunosa L. ♯IPOLA)Economic analysisnet returnsPanicum texanumCassia obtusifoliaDesmodium tortuosumIpomoea lacunosaCASOBDEDTOIPOLAPANTE

Information

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 1989, pp. 385 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the 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

1. Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut. Peanut Sci. 9:35–40.Google Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) management. Weed Sci. 35:594–598.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1983. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206–209 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
5. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, marketing of peanuts in the United States. Pages 571–623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
6. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed Survey—Southern States. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
7. Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1986. Postemergence grass control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 34:587–590.Google Scholar
8. Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. Pages 326–410 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
9. 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.Google Scholar
10. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivations. Weed Sci. 35:711–715.Google Scholar
11. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:433–437.Google Scholar
12. Wilcut, J. W. and Wehtje, G. 1986. Comparisons between a traditional weed control program (PPI+AC) in peanuts to total postemergence programs (AC+POT). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:49.Google Scholar