Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:30:57.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum), Smellmelon (Cucumis melo), and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Peanut with Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. James Grichar
W. James Grichar*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 3507 Hwy. 59E, Beeville, TX 78102
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted during the 2003 through 2005 growing seasons to evaluate postemergence herbicides and timing of application for horse purslane, smellmelon, and Palmer amaranth control in peanut. Acifluorfen provided inconsistent control of the three weed species. Bentazon failed to control Palmer amaranth, horse purslane, and smellmelon (< 65%), whereas 2,4-DB controlled horse purslane and smellmelon less than 70%. Diclosulam applied early postemergence (EPOST) controlled Palmer amaranth at least 77% but horse purslane control varied from 27 to 73% when applied EPOST and was less than 50% with the late postemergence (LPOST) application. Diclosulam controlled smellmelon less than 65%. Imazethapyr and imazapic controlled Palmer amaranth and smellmelon at least 70% but controlled horse purslane less than 65%. Lactofen controlled Palmer amaranth and horse purslane at least 93% with the EPOST application but had inconsistent control (40 to 100%) when applied LPOST. Smellmelon control with lactofen was also inconsistent. Removal of weed interference with all herbicides except bentazon provided peanut yields greater than the nontreated check.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazondiclosulamimazapicimazethapyrlactofen2,4-DBhorse purslane, Trianthema portulacastrum L. TRTPOPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAsmellmelon, Cucumis melo L. var. Dudaim Naud. CUMMEpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Tamrun 96.’Broadleaf weedsover-the-topearly postemergencelate postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 688 - 691
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 1990. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society. 588 p.Google Scholar
Balyan, R. S. and Bhan, V. M. 1986. Emergence, growth, and reproduction of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) as influenced by environmental conditions. Weed Sci. 34:516–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balyan, R. S. and Malik, R. K. 1989. Control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in mung bean (Vigna radiate). Weed Sci. 37:695–699.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. in Pattee, H.E., Young, C.T., eds. Peanut science and Technology. Yoakum, TX American Peanut Research Education Society. 209–249.Google Scholar
Chandra, B. and Sahai, R. 1979. Autecology of T. portulacastrum Linn. Indian J. Ecol. 6:17–21.Google Scholar
Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. 2nd ed. Richardson, Tx University of Texas at Dallas. 603 p.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:416.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N.D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society. 29–46.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1993. Horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 7:570–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1994. Spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Technol. 8:199–202.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1997. Control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:739–743.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 2001. Citronmelon (Citrullus lanatus var. citroides) control in Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea) using postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:481–484.Google Scholar
Livingston, S. D. 2006. Over-the-top and lay-by herbicide treatments to control silverleaf nightshade, desert horse purslane, and Texas smellmelon in RR, RR-Flex, and Liberty Link transgenic cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:225.Google Scholar
Livingston, S. D., Janak, J. D., and Matthies, A. Z. Jr. 2004. Early and late-season suppression and control of Texas smellmelon in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:27.Google Scholar
Lovell, S. T., Wax, L. M., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 1996. Imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:789–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 9:141–147.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. E. 1999. The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol. 13:632–635.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Feist, D. A., and Retzinger, E. J. 1997. SAMOA: one company's approach to herbicide-resistant weed management. Pestic. Sci. 51:367–370.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. M., Rosales-Robles, E., Chandler, J. M., Nester, P. R., and Tingle, C. H. 2005. Crop tolerance and weed management systems in imidazolinone-tolerant corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 19:1037–1044.Google Scholar
Tingle, C. H. and Chandler, J. M. 2004. The effect of herbicides and crop rotations on weed control in glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 18:940–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingle, C. H., Chandler, J. M., Jones, C. A., and Steele, G. L. 2000. Competition and control of smellmelon (Cucumis melo L. Var dudaim Naud.) in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:207–208.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:453–459.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:291–306.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