Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:33:59.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in North Carolina Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with S-Metolachlor, Diclosulam, Flumioxazin, and Sulfentrazone Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis ,
Wesley J. Everman ,
David L. Jordan  and
John W. Wilcut
Scott B. Clewis*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station near Rocky Mount and at the Peanut Belt Research Station near Lewiston-Woodville in 2002 and 2003. Peanut injury was minimal (< 5%) with all soil-applied programs. S-Metolachlor PRE alone or in mixture with sulfentrazone, diclosulam, or flumioxazin controlled annual grasses similarly (66 to 87%). The addition of imazapic plus 2,4-DB POST increased annual grass control (> 93%). Sulfentrazone or diclosulam in mixture with S-metolachlor were the best PRE options, with 94% and 92% control of yellow and purple nutsedge, respectively, with flumioxazin being least effective at 70%. Diclosulam and flumioxazin in mixture with S-metolachlor were the best PRE options, with 99% and 93%, respectively for common ragweed control, whereas sulfentrazone was the least effective at 65%. S-Metolachlor in mixture with sulfentrazone, diclosulam, or flumioxazin PRE were similar (87 to 90%) for common lambsquarters control. S-Metolachlor in mixture with sulfentrazone, diclosulam, or flumioxazin provided similar levels of entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglory control (87, 86, and 87%, respectively) and better than S-metolachlor alone at 64%. Flumioxazin in mixture with S-metolachlor was the best PRE option for control of Palmer amaranth at 96%, whereas diclosulam with S-metolachlor was the best PRE option for control of eclipta at 100%. The prepackaged mixture of acifluorfen and bentazon plus 2,4-DB POST and imazapic plus 2,4-DB POST were similar for all morningglory species (> 96%) and Palmer amaranth control (93 and 97%, respectively). Peanut treated with S-metolachlor plus diclosulam PRE numerically yielded the highest at 3,210 kg/ha, but were statistically equivalent to S-metolachlor plus flumioxazin PRE at 3,040 kg/ha. Peanut treated with imazapic plus 2,4-DB POST yielded the most at 3,400 kg/ha, while peanut treated with a prepackaged mixture of acifluorfen and bentazon plus 2,4-DB POST yielded less (3,070 kg/ha).

Keywords

2,4-DBacifluorfenbentazondiclosulamflumioxazinimazapicS-metolachlorsulfentrazonecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. ECLALentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray IPOHGivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLApurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. CYPROtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L., ‘NCV-11’, ‘VA-98R’Crop toleranceweed management
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 629 - 635
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. J., Norris, A. E., and Hess, F. D. 1994. Synthetic organic chemicals that act through the porphyrin pathway. in Duke, S.O., Rebeiz, C.A., eds. Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications. Washington, DC American Chemical Society. 18–33. ACS Symposium Series 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2006a. Cadre product label. Pages 1–16. BASF Corporation, Agricultural Products, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006b. Storm product label. Pages 1–6. United Phosphorus Inc., 423 Riverview Plaza, Trenton, NJ 09611.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006c. Strongarm product label. Pages 1–7. Dow Agro-Sciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1189.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006d. Spartan product label. Pages 1–2. FMC Corporation, Agriculture Products Group, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Diclosulam systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Technol. 16:807–814.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
Brandenburg, R. L. 2005. Peanut insect and mite management. in Jordan, D.L., ed. 2005 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-331. 61–78.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. in Pattee, H.E., Young, C.T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Ahoskie, NC American Peanut Res. Soc. 5.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Spears, J. F., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Influence of environmental factors on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) germination. Weed Sci. 51:683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J. and Swann, C. W. 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci. 15:57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr., and Burn, T. M. 1982. Management of broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 49:768–772.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
Collins, K. B., McNiel, R. E., and Weston, L. A. 2001. Evaluation of sulfentrazone for weed control and phytotoxicity in field-grown landscape plants. J. Environ. Hort. 19:189–194.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Baughman, T. A., Keeling, J. W., Grichar, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2001. Effect of imazapic application timing on Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 15:26–29.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lydon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr., and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, W. J., Clewis, S. B., Taylor, Z. G., and Wilcut, J. W. 2006. Influence of diclosulam postemergence application timing on weed control and peanut tolerance. Weed Technol. 20:651–657.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. R. and Priest, J. A. 2003. Weed management. in. Flue-Cured Tobacco Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. AG-187. 71–89.Google Scholar
Frans, R. R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. in Camper, N.D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society. 37–38.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
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 23:30–36.CrossRefGoogle 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
K.K. Hatzios, ed. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement to the 7th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 104.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2006. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Online. Internet. February 21, 2006. Available at http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed June 6, 2006.Google Scholar
Hulting, A. G., Wax, L. M., Nelson, R. L., and Simmons, F. W. 2001. Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivar tolerance to sulfentrazone. Crop Prot. 20:679–683.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2005. Weed management in peanuts. in. 2005 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. 17–60.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1998. Sulfentrazone for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:684–689.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. T., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 16:593–596.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. T., and Whitty, B. E. 2003. Response of three runner-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 17:89–93.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. M. and Retzinger, E. J. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 17:605–619.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2001. Weed management with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max). Crop Prot. 20:215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:233–238.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45:426–429.Google Scholar
Price, A. J. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) response to neighboring corn (Zea mays L.) plants and different colored physical structures. Abst. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 42:45.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. R. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Eastin, E. F. 1995. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr and metolachlor. Weed Technol. 9:807–812.Google Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., Shokes, F. M., and Colvin, D. L. 1997. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chloranthalonil deposition, foliar disease incidence, and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Technol. 11:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M., Burke, I. C., Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, C. M., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Interference and seed rain dynamics of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:210.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
Sheppard, B. R., Braxton, L. B., Barrentine, J. L., Geselius, T. C., Grant, D. L., Langston, V. B., Redding, K. D., Richburg, J. S., and Roby, D. B. 1997. Diclosulam, a new herbicide for broadleaf weed control in soybeans and peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:161.Google Scholar
Spears, J. F. 2005. Peanut seed. in Jordan, D.L., ed. 2005 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-331. 13–16.Google Scholar
Swantek, J. M., Sneller, C. H., and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci. 46:271–277.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Prostko, E. P., and Webster, T. E. 2002. Is Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) resistant to ALS and dinitroaniline herbicides? Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:189.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10:762–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci Soc. 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C. esculentus) to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:382–387.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. and Swann, C. W. 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558–562.CrossRefGoogle 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
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482—a new N-phenyl phthalimide herbicide. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf., Weeds 1:69–75.Google Scholar