Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:18:35.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diclosulam Systems for Weed Management in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey and
John W. Wilcut
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Lewiston and Rocky Mount, NC, in 1996 and 1997 to evaluate weed control and peanut response to preplant incorporated (PPI) treatments of diclosulam alone and in systems with postemergence (POST) commercial standard herbicides. All plots received ethalfluralin PPI at 840 g ai/ha. In both years, ethalfluralin plus diclosulam PPI at 17 or 26 g ai/ha followed by (fb) acifluorfen plus bentazon POST, paraquat plus bentazon POST, or imazapic POST controlled common lambsquarters, ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, smooth pigweed, spurred anoda, and yellow nutsedge in a manner similar to or better than did the commercial standards of ethalfluralin PPI fb metolachlor preemergence (PRE) fb acifluorfen plus bentazon or ethalfluralin PPI fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST. Yield from peanut treated with diclosulam systems that included POST herbicides was equivalent to or higher than that from peanut treated with ethalfluralin PPI fb metolachlor PRE fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST or ethalfluralin PPI fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST. Peanut exhibited excellent tolerance to diclosulam PPI at all rates.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazondiclosulamethalfluralinimazapicmetolachlorparaquatcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHspurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. # ANVCRyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 7’, ‘NC 10C’Herbicide injuryfb, followed byPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002, pp. 807 - 814
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. 2001. Strongarm herbicide supplemental label. EPA Reg. No. 62719–288. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. 3 p.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.Google 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 Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14: 402–405.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Grichar, W. J., Keeling, J. W., Lemon, R. G., Prostko, E. P., Porter, B. L., Besler, B. A., Brewer, K. D., Langston, V. B., and Lassiter, R. B. 2000. Strongarm and Dual Magnum combinations for weed control in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 36.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Weed management in peanuts. In Pimental, D., ed. CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. Vol. 3. 2nd ed., Boca Raton, FL. pp. 239–251.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Kvien, C. K., Hook, J. E., and Stark, C. R. Jr. 1994. Herbicide efficacy for weeds of the Virginia-Carolina peanut market area. Appendix 3.1.3, In An Analysis of the Use and Benefits of Pesticides in U.S.-Grown Peanuts: III Virginia-Carolina Production Region. National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory. Tifton, GA. p.1.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
Cardina, J. and Swann, C. W. 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci. 15: 57–60.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut. Weed Sci. 50: 378–385.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
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1997. Weed management in west Texas peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 6.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 299–313.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. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed., South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL. p. 37.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Colburn, A. E., and Baumann, P. A. 1996. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) as influenced by method of metolachlor application. Weed Technol. 10: 278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Sestak, D. C. 1997. Diclosulam for weed control in south Texas peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 6.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.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Nester, P. R., and Colburn, A. E. 1992. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6: 396–400.Google Scholar
Henning, R. J., Allison, A. H., and Tripp, L. D. 1982. Cultural practices. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc. Yoakum, TX. pp. 123–138.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. L. and Vencill, W. K. 2000. Diclosulam systems for weed management in Georgia peanut. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 34.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1997. 1997 Peanut Information. Jordan, D. L., ed. Pub. AG-331. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 87 p.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) in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 33.Google Scholar
Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. Yoakum, TX. pp. 326–410.Google Scholar
Price, A. J. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with diclosulam in strip-tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16: 29–36.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15: 360–364.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program in North Carolina peanut. Weed Sci. 50: 91–100.Google Scholar
Swann, C. W. 2000. Weed management in peanut with diclosulam and imazapic. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 35.Google 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
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
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Norton, D. N. 1991a. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18: 26–30.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Norton, D. N. 1991b. Weed control, yield, and net returns using imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 39: 238–242.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Patterson, M. G. 1987a. Economic assessments 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., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37: 385–391.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut. Weed Sci. 44: 615–621.CrossRefGoogle 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