Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:17:21.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Georgia-06G, Florida-07, and Tifguard Peanut Cultivar Response to Chlorimuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric P. Prostko ,
Robert C. Kemerait  and
Theodore M. Webster
Eric P. Prostko*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31973
Robert C. Kemerait
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, The University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent shifts in the peanut cultivars commercially grown have led to a renewed interest in the tolerance of these new cultivars to herbicides. Field experiments were conducted in Georgia from 2008 to 2011 to evaluate the effects of chlorimuron on the incidence of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) and yield of ‘Florida-07’, ‘Georgia-06G’, and ‘Tifguard’. Chlorimuron at 9 g ai ha−1 was applied at 60 to 69, 70 to 79, 90 to 99, and 100 to 109 d after peanut emergence (DAE). TSWV was increased by only 3% when chlorimuron was applied to Tifguard at 60 to 69 DAE. Yields of Florida-07 were not influenced by any timing of chlorimuron. Chlorimuron applied 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 90 to 99 DAE caused yield reductions when applied to Georgia-06G. Yields of the cultivar Tifguard were reduced when chlorimuron was applied 70 to 79, 90 to 99, and 100 to 109 DAE. Yield losses from chlorimuron ranged from 7 to 11%.

Recientes cambios en los cultivares de maní para uso comercial han renovado el interés en la tolerancia de estos nuevos cultivares a herbicidas. De 2008 a 2011 se realizaron experimentos de campo en Georgia para evaluar los efectos de chlorimuron sobre la incidencia del virus del moteado del tomate (TSWV) y en el rendimiento de ‘Florida-07’, ‘Georgia-06G’, y ‘Tifguard’. Chlorimuron a 9 g ia ha −1 fue aplicado de 60 a 69, 70 a 79, 90 a 99, y 100 a 109 días después de la emergencia del maní (DAE). TSWV se incrementó solamente un 3% cuando se aplicó chlorimuron a Tifguard de 60 a 69 DAE. Los rendimientos de Florida-07 no fueron influenciados por ningún momento de aplicación de chlorimuron. Chlorimuron aplicado de 60 a 69, de 70 a 79, y de 90 a 99 DAE causó reducciones en el rendimiento cuando se aplicó a Georgia-06G. Los rendimientos del cultivar Tifguard se redujeron cuando chlorimuron se aplicó de 70 a 79, 90 a 99, y 100 a 109 DAE. Las pérdidas en el rendimiento debido a chlorimuron variaron de 7 a 11%.

Keywords

Chlorimuronpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Crop injurytomato spotted wilt virus
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 429 - 431
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, . 2011. Classic® herbicide product label. DuPont Reference No. 130000023964. Wilmington, DE DuPont.Google Scholar
Branch, W. D. 2007. Registration of ‘Georgia-06G’ peanut. J. Plant Reg. 1:120.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. and Prostko, E. P. 2010. Effect of imazapic and 2,4-DB on peanut seed quality, yield, grade, and tomato spotted wilt incidence. Peanut Sci. 37:78–82.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Wehtje, G. 2004. Response of new cultivars to early postemergence chlorimuron applications. Peanut Sci. 31:119–123.Google Scholar
Gorbet, D. W. and Shokes, F. M. 2002. Registration of “C-99R’ peanut. Crop Sci. 42:2207.Google Scholar
Gorbet, D. W. and Tillman, B. L. 2009. Registration of ‘Florida-07’ peanut. J. Plant Reg. 1:14–18.Google Scholar
Hammes, G. G., Patterson, K. A., and Seay, R. E. 1990. Chlorimuron tank mixtures and application timing on peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:107. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Holbrook, C. C. Jr., Timper, P., Culbreath, A. K., and Kvien, C. K. 2008. Registration of ‘Tifguard’ peanut. J. Plant Reg. 2:92–94.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III., Holbrook, C. C., Mullinix, B. G., and Cardina, J. Response of eight genetically diverse peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19:111–115.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Grey, T. L., Webster, T. M., and Kemerait, R. C. 2011. Peanut tolerance to pyroxasulfone. Peanut Sci. 38:111–114.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Kemerait, R. C., Jost, P. H., Johnson, W. C. III, Brown, S. N., and Webster, T. M. 2009. The influence of cultivar and chlorimuron application timing on spotted wilt disease and peanut yield. Peanut Sci. 36:92–95.Google Scholar
Tubbs, J. S., Prostko, E. P., Kemerait, R. C., Brenneman, T. B., and Wann, D. Q. 2010. Influence of paraquat on yield and tomato spotted wilt virus for Georgia-02C and Georgia-03L peanut. Peanut Sci. 37:39–43.Google Scholar