Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T08:17:52.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual Herbicide Weed Control Systems in Peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey and
Glenn R. Wehtje
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Department Crop and Soil Science, Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tgrey@tifton.uga.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate residual herbicides applied alone and with a contact weed control program in peanut in Georgia and Alabama. Residual herbicide treatments included pendimethalin preemergence (PRE) at 924 g ai/ha, diclosulam PRE at 18 and 26 g ai/ha, flumioxazin PRE at 70 and 104 g ai/ha, sulfentrazone PRE at 168 and 280 g ai/ha, and imazapic postemergence (POST) at 71 g ai/ha. All herbicides were applied alone and in combination with an early postemergence (EPOST) application of paraquat plus bentazon. Peanut injury ranged from 0 to 7% for diclosulam, from 0 to 28% for flumioxazin, from 0 to 59% for sulfentrazone, from 0 to 15% for imazapic, and from 4 to 12% for paraquat plus bentazon. Across locations and years, Florida beggarweed control was 92% or greater with flumioxazin PRE at 104 g/ha, 77% or greater with diclosulam PRE at 26 g/ha, 80% or greater with sulfentrazone PRE at 280 g/ha, ranged from 54 to 86% for imazapic POST, and was 68% or less for paraquat plus bentazon EPOST. For diclosulam, sulfentrazone, and imazapic, including paraquat plus bentazon EPOST improved Florida beggarweed control vs. these treatments alone. However, flumioxazin alone provided consistent and season-long Florida beggarweed control without paraquat plus bentazon EPOST. Sicklepod control with imazapic was consistently greater than 90%, but it was 70% or less with diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone. Paraquat plus bentazon EPOST used with the residual herbicide treatments resulted in variable sicklepod control ranging from 40 to 99%. Yellow nutsedge control was 95% or greater with sulfentrazone, varied from 56 to 93% with diclosulam, and was 87% or greater with imazapic. Tall and smallflower morningglory, wild poinsettia, Palmer amaranth, and bristly starbur control varied by residual herbicide treatment. Yields were similar for diclosulam, flumioxazin, sulfentrazone, and imazapic treated peanut.

Keywords

Bentazondiclosulamflumioxazinimazapicparaquatpendimethalinsulfentrazonebristly starbur, Acanthospermum hispidum DC. # ACNHIFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sec) L. # DEDTOsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBsmallflower morningglory, Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb. # IAQTAtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUwild poinsettia, Euphorbia heterophylla L. # EPHHLyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Peanut injurypeanut yieldsusceptibility to herbicidesEPOST, early postemergencePOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005, pp. 560 - 567
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

Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999a. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999b. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:771–776.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 market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402–405.Google Scholar
Brecke, B., Wehtje, G., and Paudel, K. 2002. Comparison between diclosulam- and imazapic-based weed control systems in peanut. Peanut Sci. 29:52–57.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. 1994. Peanut herbicides for Georgia: Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences Bull. 1100. Athens, GA: Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 206–249.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Brecke, B. J. 1991. Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) growth and development in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 5:147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Baughman, T. A., Keeling, T. A., Gricahr, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2001. Effect of imazapic application timing on Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:26–29.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1997. Purple nutsedge control in peanut as affected by imazameth (AC 263,222) and imazethapyr application timing. Peanut Sci. 24:113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Bridges, D. C. 2000. Effect of emergence and herbicide application timing on Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) competition in peanut (Arachis hypogea). in Proceeding of American Peanut Research and Education Society 32:23.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 2000. Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:51–56.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Eastin, E. F. 2001. Influence of application rate and timing of diclosulam on weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 28:13–19.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., Eastin, E. F., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Influence of flumioxazin rate and herbicide combinations on weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 29:24–29.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., Hancock, H. G., and Davis, J. W. 2004. Influence of sulfentrazone rate and application method on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) weed control. Weed Technol. 18:619–625.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., and Paudel, K. P. 1995. Comparison of imazethapyr and paraquat-based weed control systems for peanut. Weed Technol. 9:813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1997. Influence of herbicides and timing of application on broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:708–713.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 23:30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Nester, P. R. 1997. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 11:714–719.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Sestak, D. C. 2000. Herbicide systems for golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides) control in peanut. Peanut Sci. 27:23–26.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1992. Weed spectrum of F6285 in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:49.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance or weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1994. Use of F6285 for weed control in peanut: efficacy and crop injury. Peanut Sci. 21:65–68.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1999. Influence of adjuvants on efficacy of imazapic and 2,4-DB. Peanut Sci. 26:1–4.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Published Estimates Database. Washington, DC: NASS–USDA.Google Scholar
Newsom, L. J., Shaw, D. R., and Hubbard, T. F. Jr. 1993. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of AC 263,222 in peanut (Arachis hypogaea), soybean (Glycine max), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 41:523–527.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Cullbreath, A. K., and Kvien, C. K. 1995a. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to the herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci. 22:76–80.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
Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee sena (Cassia occidentalis) geographic distribution, germination, and emergence. Weed Sci. 28:68–71.Google Scholar
50 cooperating crop specialists. 1998. Spectacular increases in crop yields in the United States in the twentieth century. Weed Technol. 12:752–760.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Wilcut, J. W., and Coble, H. D. 1997. Influence of AC 263,222 rate and application method on weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:520–526.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Brecke, B. J., and Martin, N. R. Jr. 2000a. Performance and economic benefit of herbicides for broadleaf weed control in peanut. Peanut Sci. 27:11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Paterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum control in peanuts with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Padgett, D., and Martin, N. R. Jr. 2000b. Imazapic-based herbicide systems for peanut and factors affecting activity on Florida beggarweed. Peanut Sci. 27:17–22.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.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, and Wiley, G. L. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 44:615–621.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 207–244.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL: WSSA.Google Scholar