Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:44:30.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual Grass Control with Preplant Incorporated and Preemergence Applications of Ethalfluralin and Pendimethalin in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric P. Prostko ,
W. Carroll Johnson III  and
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
Eric P. Prostko*
Affiliation:
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Rural Development Center, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
W. Carroll Johnson III
Affiliation:
USDA/ARS, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
Affiliation:
Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The efficacy of preemergence (PRE) applications of ethalfluralin or pendimethalin incorporated with irrigation was compared with mechanical preplant incorporated (PPI) applications at equivalent rates in peanut. PRE applications of herbicides followed by irrigation were as effective as PPI applications in controlling Texas panicum, southern crabgrass, and crowfootgrass. Split PPI/PRE applications of ethalfluralin were more effective than PPI applications in controlling Texas panicum in 2 of 3 yr. Sequential postemergence applications of clethodim or sethoxydim increased the control of Texas panicum when ethalfluralin or pendimethalin controlled Texas panicum less than 82%. No differences in peanut yield were observed between PPI or PRE applications of either ethalfluralin or pendimethalin.

Keywords

Clethodimethalfluralinpendimethalinsethoxydimcrowfootgrass, Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. #3 DTTAEsouthern crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel. # DIGSPTexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Georgia Green’Irrigationfb, followed byPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergencePOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 36 - 41
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. Select product label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. Corporation.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000b. Poast Plus product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation.Google Scholar
Appleby, A. P. and Valverde, B. E. 1989. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in plants. Weed Technol. 3: 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Currey, W. L. 1980. Weed control in peanuts with ethalfluralin. Peanut Sci. 7: 124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Kvien, C. K., Hook, J. E., and Stark, C. R. Jr. 1994. An Analysis of the Use and Benefits of Pesticides in U.S.-Grown Peanuts: I Southeastern Production Region. Tifton, GA: National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory Rep. 1994-002. 47 p.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Todd, J., Culbreath, A., Baldwin, J., and Beasley, J. 1999. Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut: Identifying and Avoiding High Risk Situations. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bull. 1165. 12 p.Google Scholar
Gasper, J. J., Street, J. R., Harrison, S. K., and Pound, W. E. 1994. Pendimethalin efficacy and dissipation in turfgrass as influenced by rainfall incorporation. Weed Sci. 42: 586–592.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1991. Control of Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and southern crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides. Peanut Sci. 18: 6–9.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1993. Effect of dinitroaniline herbicides upon the yield and grade of five runner cultivars. Peanut Sci. 20: 126–128.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Colburn, A. E., and Kearney, N. S. 1994. Herbicides for reduced tillage production in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the southwest. Weed Technol. 8: 212–216.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. A. and Tyson, A. 1999. Agricultural irrigation trends in Georgia. In Hatcher, K. J., ed. Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Institute of Ecology. pp. 421–424.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1995. Weed management in peanut using stale seedbed techniques. Weed Sci. 43: 293–297.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1999. Peanut seedling response to dinitroaniline herbicides applied preplant incorporated and preemergence. Peanut Sci. 26: 28–32.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Colvin, D. L., Wehtje, G. R., Littlefield, T. A., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1997. Peanut response to ethalfluralin: rates and methods of application. Peanut Sci. 24: 101–104.Google Scholar
Jordan, L. S., Day, B. E., and Clerk, W. A. 1963. Effect of incorporation and method of application on preemergence herbicides. Weeds 11: 157–160.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Grichar, W. J., Sestak, D. C., and Lemon, R. G. 1998. An economic comparision of weed control systems for Texas peanut production. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 30:30.Google Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1999. Herbicide incorporation techniques and equipment. In Stewart, C., Stagman, J., and Carnis, M., eds. Applied Weed Science. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 371–375.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1990. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol. 4: 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Hicks, T. V. 1990. Evaluation of herbicide systems in minimum- and conventional-tillage peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38: 243–248.Google Scholar