Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T20:24:59.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Paraquat on Yield and Market Grade of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Genotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Knauft ,
Daniel L. Colvin  and
Daniel W. Gorbet
David A. Knauft
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0311
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0311
Daniel W. Gorbet
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Cent., Univ. Florida, Marianna, FL 32446-9803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted for two years at one location and one year at a second location to determine the effects of paraquat on a range of peanut genotypes. Paraquat caused yield reductions of most Valencia-, Spanish-, and runner-market types as compared with hand-weeded checks. Virginia-market types were less affected by paraquat treatment. Most grade characteristics were adversely affected by paraquat. Because the paraquat treatments increased the proportion of other kernels, the herbicide may be affecting yield and grade by delaying maturity.

Keywords

Peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.paraquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionHerbicide tolerancegenetic variability
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 866 - 870
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. p. 206–209 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
2. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, and marketing of peanuts in the United States. p. 571–623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
3. Freed, R., Eisensmith, S. P., Goetz, S., Reicosky, D., Smail, V. W., and Wolberg, P. 1989. User's guide to MSTAT-C Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
4. Hammons, R. O. 1976. Peanuts: Genetic vulnerability and breeding strategy. Crop Sci. 16:527–530.Google Scholar
5. Holbrook, C. C., and Kvien, C. S. 1989. 1988 cultivar census. Peanut Res. 27(1):4.Google Scholar
6. Knauft, D. A., and Gorbet, D. W. 1989. Genetic diversity among peanut cultivars. Crop Sci. 29:1417–1422.Google Scholar
7. Knauft, D. A., Norden, A. J., and Gorbet, D. W. 1987. Peanut breeding, p. 346–384 in Fehr, W. R., ed. Principles of Cultivar Development. Vol. 2. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
8. Riffle, M. S. 1985. Evaluation of peanut germplasm for herbicide tolerance. M. S. Thesis. Univ. Florida. 66 p.Google Scholar
9. Wehtje, G., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. 1986. Comparisons between a traditional weed control program (PPI+AC) in peanuts to total post-emergence programs (AC+POT). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:49.Google Scholar
11. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Vint Hicks, T., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems without dinoseb for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:385–391.Google Scholar