Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:07:21.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Persistence of Imazapic in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Crop Rotations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark A. Matocha ,
W. James Grichar ,
Scott A. Senseman ,
Cecilia A. Gerngross ,
Barry J. Brecke  and
William K. Vencill
Mark A. Matocha*
Affiliation:
Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
W. James Grichar
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Scott A. Senseman
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Cecilia A. Gerngross
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, Jay, FL
William K. Vencill
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Athens, GA
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Yoakum and Stephenville, TX; Jay, FL; and Midville and Plains, GA, to determine the persistence of imazapic applied to peanuts at 0, 70, 140, and 210 g ai/ha. The following year, cotton, sorghum, and corn were planted in the treated plots in Texas, cotton was planted in Florida, and corn and cotton were planted in Georgia and evaluated for carryover injury. Data collected to determine injury included plant heights and weights. In 1999 in Texas and in Florida and Georgia, there was no significant carryover injury to rotational crops from any of the imazapic rates. Data on cotton and sorghum plant height from Texas in 2000 showed height reductions for the 210-g/ha rate on cotton and the 140- and 210-g/ha rates on sorghum. These data showed no significant carryover effects to rotational crops from the 70-g/ha rate of imazapic applied to peanuts the previous year.

Keywords

Imazapiccotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.corn, Zea mays L.peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.sorghum, Sorghum bicolor LCarryover injuryherbicide persistenceherbicide residueDAP, days after plantingEPOST, early postemergenceMAP, months after plantingPPI, preplant incorporated
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 325 - 329
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

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37: 820–824.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421–428.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Sestak, D. C., and Nester, P. R. 1999. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on rotational crops following peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in south Texas. Tex. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 12: 18–27.Google Scholar
Grymes, C. F., Chandler, J. M., and Nester, P. R. 1995. Response of soybean (Glycine max) and rice (Oryza sativa) in rotation to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 9: 504–511.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, W. G., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Nicosulfuron, primisulfuron, imazethapyr, and DPX—PE350 injury to succeeding crops. Weed Technol. 7: 641–644.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residues. Weed Sci. 44: 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40: 490–496.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in soil—A review of the literature. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10: 100–106.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Web page: http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/ranking/crank97.htm#peanuts.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggit, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Response of corn (Zea mays) cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci. 36: 625–628.Google Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of soil-applied AC 263,222 on crops rotated with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 276–279.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., Batts, R. B., and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Cotton response to imazapic and imazethapyr applied to a preceding peanut crop. J. Cotton Sci. 4: 210–216.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Potential for Pursuit and Cadre applied to peanuts to carry over to cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 602.Google Scholar