Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:34:14.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management with Diclosulam in Strip-Tillage Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Price  and
John W. Wilcut
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. 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 three locations in North Carolina in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate weed management systems in strip-tillage peanut. Diclosulam was evaluated with standard preemergence (PRE), early postemergence, and postemergence (POST) herbicide systems in a factorial treatment arrangement. Preemergence treatments that contained diclosulam controlled common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and eclipta by 100%. Diclosulam PRE controlled entireleaf morningglory by 88%, ivyleaf morningglory by ≥ 90%, pitted morningglory by ≥ 81%, and prickly sida by ≥ 94%. Yellow nutsedge control with diclosulam ranged from 65 to 100% depending on location, whereas POST systems containing imazapic controlled yellow nutsedge by at least 89%, regardless of PRE herbicides. Peanut yields and net returns were reflective of levels of weed management. Systems that included diclosulam PRE plus POST herbicides consistently provided high yields and net returns. Clethodim late POST was required for full-season control of annual grasses, including broadleaf signalgrass, goosegrass, large crabgrass, and Texas panicum.

Keywords

Clethodimdiclosulamimazapicbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash #3 BRAPPcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. # ECLALentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPTexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 10C’ and ‘NC 12C’Economic analysisEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 29 - 36
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

Anonymous. 2000a. Zorial Rapid 80 product label. Novartis Crop Protection Division. P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. 5 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000b. Strongarm product label. Dow AgroSciences LLC. 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. 5 p.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.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. 2000. Peanut disease management. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331. pp. 71–86.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.CrossRefGoogle 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., et al. 2000. Strongarm and Dual Magnum combinations for weed control in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:36.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2000. Peanut insect management. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331. pp. 69–77.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Kvien, C. K., Hook, J. E., and Stark, C. R. Jr. 1994. Analysis of the Use and Benefits of Pesticides in U.S.-grown Peanut: III Virginia-Carolina Production Region. Tifton, GA: National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory. Rep. 1994-002. 47 p.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 2000. 1999 Outlook and situation. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication pp. 1–4.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
Frans, 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. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1987. Comparison of no-tillage, minimum, and full tillage cultural practices in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 14: 101–103.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2000. Peanut production practices. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publ. AG-331. pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Batts, R. B., and York, A. C. 1998. Response of Virginia-type peanut to norflurazon. Peanut Sci. 25: 4–7.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., and MacDonald, G. E. 2000. Weed management systems for control of Florida beggar weed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Proc South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:33.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Lemon, R. G., and Whitney, R. A. 1998. Weed control in peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:59.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 Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of foliar and/or soil applied imazethapyr to purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 7: 900–905.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. Toxicity of foliar and/or soil applied AC 263,222 to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 42: 398–402.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wiley, G. L. 1995. AC 263,622 and imazethapyr rates and mixtures for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9: 801–806.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.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
Sholar, J. R., Mozingo, R. W., and Beasley, J. P. Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. pp. 354–382.Google Scholar
Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L. 1991. Soil and water conservation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 232 p.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5: 416–420.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.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18: 26–30.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Colvin, D. L., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of herbicide systems for minimum-tillage peanut and conventional tillage peanut. Peanut Sci. 14: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Hicks, T. V. 1990. Evaluation of herbicide systems in minimum and conventional tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38: 243–248.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
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
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 timing of application. Weed Sci. 43: 107–116.Google Scholar