Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:16:51.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Diclosulam Postemergence Application Timing on Weed Control and Peanut Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wesley J. Everman ,
Scott B. Clewis ,
Zachary G. Taylor  and
John W. Wilcut
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Zachary G. Taylor
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail address: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Lewiston–Woodville and Rocky Mount, NC in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate weed control and peanut response to POST treatments of diclosulam at various rates and application timings. Diclosulam controlled common ragweed and entireleaf morningglory when applied within 35 d after planting (DAP). Common ragweed 61 cm tall was controlled ≥92% with 4 to 13 g ai/ha diclosulam and larger common ragweed (107 to 137 cm tall) were controlled ≥97% with 27 g/ha diclosulam. Common lambsquarters was controlled 62% or less with all diclosulam POST treatments following metolachlor applied PRE, which provided 48% control. Peanut injury was less than 15% with all diclosulam POST treatments and was transitory. In separate studies, POST diclosulam treatments did not affect peanut yield in a weed-free environment. Peanut yield in weedy environments was reduced as the diclosulam application timing was delayed because of early season weed interference. A linear relationship was observed between yield and application timing with yield decreasing as application timing was delayed. This yield response documents the importance of early season weed management for maximizing peanut yield potential. Virginia peanut varieties were not affected by different POST rates of diclosulam; however, early season peanut injury showed a linear and quadratic relationship with diclosulam rate and was less than 14% at rates as high as 71 g/ha, and was not apparent by late season.

Keywords

Diclosulamcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L., NCV-11, Gregory, Perry, and VA-98 RHerbicide injuryweed controlyielddiclosulamALS, acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)COC, crop oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early POSTNIS, nonionic surfactantRCBD, randomized complete block designWAP, weeks after plantingWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 651 - 657
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. 2005a. Strongarm product label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow Agro-Sciences. 9 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005b. Classic product label. Wilmington, DE: DuPont. 4 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005c. Storm product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Agricultural Products Group. 6 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Diclosulam systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Weed Technol. 16:807–814.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999a. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999b. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:771–776.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yields in eight Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402–405.Google Scholar
Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 9:35–40.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1989. Response of peanut cultivars to herbicide treatments. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:28.Google Scholar
Brecke, B., Wehtje, G., and Paudel, K. 2002. Comparison between diclosulam- and imazapic-based weed control systems in peanut. Peanut Sci. 29:52–57.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 206–249.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Brecke, B. J. 1989. Growth and development of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) selections. Weed Sci. 37:207–210.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 49:768–772.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 2000. Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:51–56.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Dotray, P. A., and Sestak, D. C. 1999. Diclosulam for weed control in Texas peanut. Peanut Sci. 26:23–28.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., Nichols, R. L., and Patterson, R. M. 1982. Effects of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Sci. 30:602–604.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C., Holbrook, C. C., Mullinix, B. G. Jr., and Cardina, J. 1992. Response of eight genetically diverse peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19:111–115.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2005. Weed management in peanuts. in 2005 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. Pp. 17–60.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Batts, R. B., and York, A. C. 1998. Response of Virginia-type peanut to norflurazon. Peanut Sci. 25:4–7.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. T., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 16:593–596.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 2002. Weed management with diclosulam in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:724–730.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. R. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. K., and Kvein, C. K. 1995. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars to the herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci. 22:76–80.Google Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., and Colvin, D. L. 1997a. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference with peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 45:38–45.Google Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., Shokes, F. M., and Colvin, D. L. 1997b. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chloranthalonil deposition, foliar disease incidence, and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Technol. 11:51–58.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Economic evaluation of HADSS computer program in North Carolina peanut. Weed Sci. 50:91–100.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Tropic croton interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 18:119–123.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., 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.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Tropic croton (Croton glandulosus) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 5:795–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. 2001. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137–140.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Swann, C. W. 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558–562.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Patterson, M. G., Cole, T. A., and Hicks, T. V. 1989. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied chlorimuron in soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:175–180.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
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., Jordan, D. L., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1995. Efficacy of imazethapyr in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) as affected by time of application. Weed Sci. 43:107–116.Google Scholar