Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:02:35.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. James Grichar
W. James Grichar*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Box 755, Yoakum, TX 77995
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seven postemergence (POST) herbicides were evaluated alone and in various mixtures for Palmer amaranth control in peanut from 1992 through 1994. AC 263,222 at rates as low as 0.04 kg/ha controlled ≥ 95% Palmer amaranth. Imazethapyr at rates of 0.05 to 0.07 kg/ha controlled ≥ 90% Palmer amaranth in 2 of 3 yr. Acifluorfen alone or in combination with bentazon or 2,4-DB and lactofen alone controlled > 90% Palmer amaranth in 2 of 3 yr. Bentazon or pyridate failed to provide adequate control (≤ 60%), while 2,4-DB provided good control (80%) in only 1 of 3 yr.

Keywords

AC 263,222, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidacifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidbentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxideimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidlactofen, (±)-2-ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoatepyridate, O-(6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyl S-octyl carbonothioate2,4-DB, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPApeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘GK-7.'AC 263,222acifluorfen2,4-DBbentazonpyridatelactofengroundnutAMAPAEPOST, early postemergenceLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 739 - 743
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1990. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Birschbach, E. D., Myers, M. G., and Harvey, R. G. 1993. Triazine-resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) control in field corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 7:431–436.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Weed management in peanuts. In Pimentel, D., ed. CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. 2nd ed, Volume 3. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 239–251.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 Education Society. pp. 209–249.Google Scholar
Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. 2nd ed. Richardson, TX: University of Texas at Dallas. pp. 555–556.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—Southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:396–410.Google Scholar
Driver, T. and Oliver, L. R. 1985. Control of woolly croton (Croton capitatus) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:727–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiebig, W. W., Shilling, D. G., and Knauft, D. A. 1991. Peanut genotype response to interference from common cocklebur. Crop Sci. 31:1289–1292.Google Scholar
Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1992. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 6:108–112.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1994. Spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Technol. 8:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, T. V., Wehtje, G. R., and Wilcut, J. W. 1990. Weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with pyridate. Weed Technol. 4:493–495.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 1993. Application liming of lactofen for broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 20:129–131.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, E. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., and Colvin, D. L. 1988. Evaluation of pyridate for postemergence weed control in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:64.Google Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 9:141–147.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1987. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and other plant residues in soil. Weed Sci. 35:339–347.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1988. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on seedling growth. Weed Sci. 36:325–328.Google Scholar
Monks, D. M. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.Google Scholar
Solymosi, P. and Lehoczki, E. 1989. Characterization of a triple (atrazine–pyrazon–pyridate) resistant biotype of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). Plant Physiol, J. 134:685–670.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.Google Scholar
Walker, R. H., Wells, L. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Bristly starbar (Acanthosperum hispidium) interference in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:196–200.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., and Hagwood, H. B. 1990. Lactofen systems for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 4:819–823.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991a. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991b. Tropic croton (Croton glandulosus) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 5:795–798.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991c. Imazethapyr and AC 263,222 systems for Georgia peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:138.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Richburg, J. S. III. 1992. Pursuit and Cadre tank mixtures for weed control in Georgia peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 24:46.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G., Wall, F. R. Jr., Jones, S. R., and Iverson, M. J. 1994. Imidazolinone herbicide systems for peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 2:23–28.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1992. Rate and application studies with AC 263,222 in peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:110.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:177–205.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar