Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:33:46.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interactions of Late-Season Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) Management Practices in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sarah H. Lancaster
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Rick L. Brandenburg
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Box 7613, Raleigh, NC 27695-7613
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in North Carolina during 2002 and 2003 to evaluate entireleaf morningglory control by 2,4-DB applied alone or with seven fungicides. In a separate group of experiments, tall morningglory control by 2,4-DB was evaluated when applied in four-way mixtures with the following: the fungicides azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil, pyraclostrobin, or tebuconazole; the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin; and the foliar fertilizer disodium octaborate or the plant growth regulator (PGR) prohexadione calcium plus urea ammonium nitrate. Pyraclostrobin, but not azoxystrobin, boscalid, chlorothalonil, fluazinam, propiconazole plus trifloxystrobin, or tebuconazole, reduced entireleaf morningglory control by 2,4-DB. Mixtures of fungicides, insecticides, and foliar fertilizer/ PGR did not affect tall morningglory control by 2,4-DB. Placing artificial morningglory in the peanut canopy when fungicides were applied did not intercept enough fungicide to increase peanut defoliation by early leaf spot and web blotch or reduce pod yield compared with fungicide applied without artificial morningglory.

Type
Research Article
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

Barbour, J. C., Bridges, D. C., and NeSmith, D. S. 1994. Peanut acclimation to simulated shading by weeds. Agron. J. 86:874–88.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. T. Jr., and Godley, F. M. 1984. Control of annual morningglories (Ipomoea spp.) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:813818.Google Scholar
Beam, J. B., Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Bailey, J. E., Isleib, T. G., and McKemie, T. E. 2002. Interaction of prohexadione calcium with agrichemicals applied to peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 29:2935.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2004. Peanut insect and mite management. in 2004 Peanut Information. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Series AG-331. Pp. 5572.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1988. Interactions of carbaryl and dimethoate with sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 2:433436.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. R. and Penner, D. 1982. Enhanced activity of bentazon with organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Weed Sci. 30:324326.Google Scholar
Choate, J., Wehtje, G., and Bowen, K. L. 1998. Interaction of paraquat-based weed control with chlorothalonil-based disease control in peanut. J. Prod. Agric. 11:191195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, D. W., O'Barr, J. H., and Zollinger, R. K. 2003. Interaction of a foliar application of iron HEDTA and three postemergence broadleaf herbicides with soybeans stressed from chlorosis. J. Plant Nutr. 26:23652374.Google Scholar
Gascho, G. J. and Davis, J. G. 1995. Soil fertility and plant nutrition. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 383418.Google Scholar
Grymes, C. F., Griffin, J. L., Leonard, B. R., Jordan, D. L., and Boethel, B. J. 1999. Influence of weeds on insecticide deposition and soybean looper (Pseudoplusia includens) management. Weed Sci. 47:321326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hang, A. N., McCloud, D. E., Boote, K. J., and Duncan, W. G. 1984. Shade effects on growth, partitioning, and yield components of peanuts. Crop Sci. 24:109115.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2004a. Peanut production practices. in 2004 Peanut Information. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Series AG-331. Pp. 2132.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2004b. Weed management in peanuts. in 2004 Peanut Information. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Series AG-331. Pp. 3353.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Grichar, W. J., Tredaway-Ducar, J., Brecke, B. J., and York, A. C. 2003. Weed control with combinations of selected fungicides and herbicides applied postemergence to peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 30:18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 2000. Influence of adjuvants on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) response to prohexadione calcium. Peanut Sci. 27:3034.Google Scholar
Lynch, R. E. and Mack, T. P. 1995. Biological and biotechnical advances for insect management in peanut. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 95159.Google Scholar
Mitchem, W. E., York, A. C., and Batts, R. B. 1996. Peanut response to prohexandione calcium, a new plant growth regulator. Peanut Sci. 23:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosier, D. G. and Oliver, L. R. 1995. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriscula) interference on soybean. Weed Sci. 43:239246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankey, J. H., Griffin, J. L., Rogers Leonard, B., Miller, D. K., Downer, R. G., and Costello, R. W. 2004. Glyphosate-insecticide combinations effects on weed and insect control in cotton. Weed Technol. 18:698703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., Shokes, F. M., and Colvin, D. L. 1997. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chlorothalonil deposition, foliar disease incidence, and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Technol. 11:5158.Google Scholar
Sherwood, J. L., Beute, M. K., Dickson, D. W., Elliot, V. J., Nelson, R. S., Opperman, C. H., and Shew, B. B. 1995. Biological and biotechnical control in Arachis diseases. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 160206.Google Scholar
Shew, B. 2004. Peanut disease management. in 2004 Peanut Information. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Series AG-331. Pp. 7396.Google Scholar
Sturgill, M. C., Wilkerson, G. G., Robinson, B. L., Price, A. J., Bennett, A. C., and Boul, G. S. 2003. HADSS 2003 Users Manual. Research Bulletin 202. Raleigh, NC: Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Waldrop, D. D. and Banks, P. A. 1983. Interactions of 2,4-DB, acifluorfen, and toxaphene applied to foliage of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 31:351354.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:249259.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 207224.Google Scholar