Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:47:54.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Economic Yield Response of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Va. Polytech. Inst. & State Univ., P.O. Box 7219, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA 23437

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1988 and 1989 to evaluate timing of POST herbicide application in peanut for annual broadleaf weed control, peanut yield, and net returns. Bentazon tank-mixtures with either acifluorfen or paraquat controlled common lambsquarters, prickly sida, and morningglory species equally when applied either at ground-cracking (GC) or 2 wk after ground-cracking (2WGC). Paraquat controlled common lambsquarters least (32 to 33%). Bentazon plus acifluorfen plus BCH 81508S controlled 82% common lambsquarters at 2WGC compared with 66% control from bentazon plus acifluorfen plus a crop oil concentrate. Lactofen controlled 86% common lambsquarters when applied at GC compared to 34% at 2WGC. All applications applied at 4 wk after GC (4WGC) controlled essentially no annual broadleaf weeds. Higher yields and net returns were generally obtained with earlier herbicide applications. Bentazon tank-mixtures with acifluorfen provided equivalent peanut yields and net returns for GC and 2WGC applications.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

1. Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut. Peanut Sci. 9:3540.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1983. Weeds and their control in peanuts. p. 206249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., ed. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
3. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, marketing of peanuts in the United States. p. 571623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., ed. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed Survey–Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408420.Google Scholar
5. Evans, J. R., Turner, J. C., Gourd, D. R., and McKemie, T. E. 1988. Interaction of bentazon and paraquat for peanut weed control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:68.Google Scholar
6. Gallimore, G. G., Updike, G. H., and Start, S. G. III. 1988–1989. Crop enterprise cost analysis for southeast Virginia. Virginia Coop. Ext. Serv. Va. Polytech. Inst. and State Univ. Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
7. Hagwood, H.B., and Wilcut, J. W. 1989. Lactofen systems for broadleaf weed control in Virginia peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 21:57.Google Scholar
8. Henning, R. J., Allison, A. H., and Tripp, L. D. 1982. Cultural practices. p. 123138 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
9. Swann, C. W., and Wilcut, J. W. 1989. Bentazon and paraquat tank mixtures for lambsquarters control in peanuts. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 19:58.Google Scholar
10. Wilcut, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558562.Google Scholar
11. Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., and Hagwood, H. B. 1990. Lactofen systems for broadleaf weed control in peanuts. Weed Technol. 4: 819823.Google Scholar