Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T02:36:37.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of rhizoma perennial peanut to glyphosate and triclopyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2020

Logan J. Martin
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, University of Florida-Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agronomy, Range Cattle Research and Education Center, Ona, FL, USA
Brent A. Sellers*
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agronomy, Range Cattle Research and Education Center, Ona, FL, USA
Pratap Devkota
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, West Florida Research and Education Center, Department of Agronomy, Jay, FL, USA
Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Professor and Director, University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Department of Agronomy, Gainesville, FL, USA
Ramon G. Leon
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
João M.B. Vendramini
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agronomy, Range Cattle Research and Education Center, Ona, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Brent A. Sellers, Professor and Director, Range Cattle Research and Education Center, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865 Email: sellersb@ufl.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rhizoma perennial peanut (RPP) is well adapted to the Gulf Coast region of the United States, but its varietal tolerance to glyphosate and triclopyr is not well defined. The research was conducted to determine the effect of various rates of glyphosate and triclopyr on established RPP, and the response of common RPP varieties to these herbicides. The RPP sward was approximately 7 yr younger at Zolfo Springs than at the Ona location. RPP showed moderate tolerance to glyphosate and triclopyr application, and injury level did not differ with the age of RPP sward. However, biomass production was negatively influenced by the age of the RPP sward. Overall, injury from glyphosate applications did not exceed 40% at either site. The glyphosate rate for 20% biomass reduction was predicted to be 0.53 and 2.17 kg ae ha−1 at Zolfo Springs and Ona, respectively. RPP injury from triclopyr was greater at the Zolfo Springs location than at Ona, and the triclopyr rate predicted to result in a 20% biomass reduction was 0.45 and 0.99 kg ae ha−1 at the Zolfo Springs and Ona locations, respectively. There was a difference on RPP varieties response to glyphosate and triclopyr application. ‘Florigraze’ and ‘Ona 33’ were less tolerant to glyphosate compared to ‘UF-Tito’ and ‘Ecoturf’ at 30 d after treatment. Likewise, UF-Tito and Florigraze were less tolerant to triclopyr compared to Ona 33 and Ecoturf. Overall, Florigraze showed highest injury and at least 2-fold reduction on biomass compared to the other three varieties from glyphosate or triclopyr application. Results from this research indicate that glyphosate and triclopyr appear to be safe to apply to long-established RPP stands, but herbicide rate and RPP varieties should be considered if stands are <5 yr old.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America
Figure 0

Figure 1. Rhizoma perennial peanut injury as a function of glyphosate rate for data combined across 2015 and 2016 at the Zolfo Springs, FL, location. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for 15 DAT is y = −6.9x2 + 30.4x + 2.0 (R2 = 0.99); 30 DAT, y = −8.6x−2 + 34.1x − 1.2 (R2 = 0.98); and 60 DAT, y = −7.0x2 + 35.4x − 3.1 (R2 = 0.99), where y = injury (%) and x = glyphosate rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Rhizoma perennial peanut biomass as a function of glyphosate rate for data combined across 2015 and 2016 at the Zolfo Springs, FL, location at 60 DAT. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model is y = 117.4x2 − 402.3x + 489.6 (R2 = 0.89), where y = biomass (g m−2) and x = glyphosate rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Rhizoma perennial peanut injury as a function of triclopyr rate for data combined across 2015 and 2016 at the Zolfo Springs, FL, location. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for 15 DAT is y = 42.4x + 1.56 (R2 = 0.97); 30 DAT is y = 41.9x + 0.55 (R2 = 0.98); and 60 DAT is y = 49.8x + 0.37 (R2 = 0.98), where y = injury (%) and x = triclopyr rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Rhizoma perennial peanut biomass as a function of triclopyr rate for data combined across 2015 and 2016 at the Zolfo Springs, FL, location at 60 DAT. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model is y = −210.7x + 382.8 (R2 = 0.97), where y = biomass (g m−2) and x = triclopyr rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Rhizoma perennial peanut variety injury as a function of glyphosate rate at 30 DAT at the Ona, FL, location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for Ecoturf is y = 12.7x + 0.23 (R2 = 0.99); Florigraze, y = 21.5x − 1.54 (R2 = 0.99); Ona 33, y = 17.7x − 0.63 (R2 = 0.99); and UF-Tito, y = 13.5x + 1.36 (R2 = 0.99), where y = injury (%) and x = glyphosate rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 5

Table 1. Rhizoma perennial peanut variety injury, biomass, and broadleaf weed biomass averaged over glyphosate rate at the Ona, FL, location.a,b

Figure 6

Figure 6. Rhizoma perennial peanut injury as a function of glyphosate rate for data pulled across four varieties at the Ona, FL location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for 15 DAT is y = 15.4x + 0.25 (R2 = 0.99); 30 DAT, y = 16.4x − 0.20 (R2 = 0.99); and 60 DAT, y = 10.2x + 3.61 (R2 = 0.99), where y = injury (%) and x = glyphosate rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Rhizoma perennial peanut and broadleaf weed biomass as a function of glyphosate rate at 60 DAT for data pulled across four varieties at the Ona, FL, location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for rhizoma perennial peanut is y = −27.9x2 + 40.4x + 190.8 (R2 = 0.86); and broadleaf weeds, y = 33.3x2 − 104.3x + 117 (R2 = 0.91), where y = biomass (g m−2) and x = glyphosate rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 8

Figure 8. Rhizoma perennial peanut and broadleaf weed biomass ratio as a function of glyphosate rate at 60 DAT at the Ona, FL location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model is y = −1.0x2 + 2.5x + 3.1 (R2 = 0.7), where y = rhizoma perennial peanut and broadleaf weed biomass ratio and x = glyphosate rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 9

Figure 9. Rhizoma perennial peanut variety injury as a function of triclopyr rate at 30 DAT at the Ona, FL, location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for Ecoturf is y = 17.6x + 0.23 (R2 = 0.99); Florigraze, y = 27.4x − 0.37 R2 = 0.97); Ona 33, y = 20.5x + 0.21 (R2 = 0.99); and UF-Tito, y = 32.5x + 2.11 (R2 = 0.94), where y = injury (%) and x = triclopyr rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 10

Table 2. Rhizoma perennial peanut variety injury, biomass, and broadleaf weed biomass averaged over triclopyr rate at the Ona, FL, location.a,b

Figure 11

Figure 10. Rhizoma perennial peanut injury as a function of triclopyr rate for data pulled across four varieties at the Ona, FL, location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for 15 DAT is y = 27.3x − 0.07 (R2 = 0.99); 30 DAT, y = 24.7x + 0.51 (R2 = 0.99); and 60 DAT, y = 15.7x + 5.02 (R2 = 0.99), where y = injury (%) and x = triclopyr rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 12

Figure 11. Rhizoma perennial peanut and broadleaf weed biomass as a function of triclopyr rate at 60 DAT for data pulled across four varieties at the Ona, FL, location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model for rhizoma perennial peanut is y = −45.7x2 – 8.8x + 200.2 (R2 = 0.84); and broadleaf weeds, y = 58.0x2 − 127.9 + 108 (R2 = 0.77), where y = biomass (g m−2) and x = triclopyr rate (kg ae ha−1).

Figure 13

Figure 12. Rhizoma perennial peanut and broadleaf weed biomass ratio as a function of triclopyr rate at 60 DAT at the Ona, FL, location. Data are combined across two runs in 2016. Predicted line is plotted with mean and standard error. The predicted model is y = −1.5*exp{−exp[−(x+4.0)/−5.5]} (R2 = 0.96), where y = rhizoma perennial peanut and broadleaf weed biomass ratio and x = triclopyr rate (kg ae ha−1).