Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:25:11.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utility of Reduced Rates of Diclosulam, Flumioxazin, and Imazapic for Weed Management in Peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Samuel D. Willingham ,
Barry J. Brecke ,
Joyce Treadaway-Ducar  and
Gregory E. MacDonald
Samuel D. Willingham*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32643
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32643
Joyce Treadaway-Ducar
Affiliation:
Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center, Auburn University, Crossville, AL 35962
Gregory E. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32643
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2002 and 2003 to determine the effects of herbicides applied below suggested use rates on weed management, yield, and estimated net return of peanut in both narrow and wide row-spacing regimes. In the single row-spacing regime study, diclosulam at 6 g/ha (1/4×) (1/4 labeled use rate) plus flumioxazin at 26 g/ha (1/4×) applied PRE followed by (fb) imazapic POST at 17, (1/4×), 35, (1/2×), or 70, (1×) g/ha was the lowest herbicide input that provided at least 80% control of sicklepod, yellow nutsedge, Florida beggarweed, and hairy indigo at 21 d after treatment (DAT). By 42 DAT, weed control was ≥ 80%, similar to herbicide treatments applied at labeled rates. In the twin row-spacing regime study at Jay, FL, and Citra, FL, in 2003, yellow nutsedge control was lowest (83 to 85%) from diclosulam applied at 1/4× in combination with flumioxazin at 1/4× PRE and flumioxazin at 1/4× or 52 g/ha (1/2×) PRE alone. All other herbicide treatments provided > 90% control. Diclosulam at 13 g/ha (1/2×) fb imazapic at 1/2× and flumioxazin at 1/4× fb imazapic at 1/2× was the lowest rate combination that provided > 80% control of sicklepod. Florida beggarweed control was > 90% with all rate combinations except diclosulam PRE alone, diclosulam at 1/4× PRE fb imazapic at 1/4× POST, and imazapic at 1/4× alone POST. Net return in the single-row spacing regime was highest for flumioxazin at 105 g/ha (1×) PRE alone, diclosulam at 1/4× applied with flumioxazin at 1/4× PRE alone or fb imazapic at 1× ($1,114, $1,094, and $990/ha, respectively). The twin row-spacing regime net return was highest with diclosulam PRE alone at 1/4, 1/2, or 26 g/ha (1×) ($2,063, $1,846, $1,734/ha, respectively). Diclosulam applied with flumioxazin at 1/2× fb imazapic at 1/2× was the lowest herbicide tank-mix input providing high net return at $1,162/ha.

Keywords

DiclosulamflumioxazinimazapicFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DChairy indigo, Indigofera hirsuta Harveysicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin & Barnebyyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L.peanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘C-99R’Broadleaf weedsFloridaproduction efficiencyreduced herbicide ratesrow spacing
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 74 - 80
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

Aerts, M. J. and Nesheim, O. N. 2000. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profiles: Peanuts. Gainesville, FL University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Publication PI044.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.CrossRefGoogle 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
Baldwin, J. A., Beasley, J. P. Jr, Brown, S. L., Todd, J. W., and Culbreath, A. K. 1998. Yield, grade, and tomato spotted wilt virus incidence of four peanut cultivars in response to twin versus single row planting patterns. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 30:51.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. A., McDaniel, R., McGriff, D. E., and Tankersley, T. B. 2001. Yield, grade, and tomato spotted wilt virus incidence of Georgia Green and AT-201 peanut when planted in twin versus single row pattern. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 33:31.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Gricher, W. J., Dotray, P. A., and Reed, J. C. 2003. Weed control with reduced rates of Cadre and Pursuit in peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:35.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Todd, J., Culbreath, A., Baldwin, J., and Beasley, J. 2003. Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in Peanut: Identifying and Avoiding High Risk Situations. Athens, GA University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 1165.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Hauser, E. W. 1980. Influence of row spacing on competitiveness and yield of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 28:401–409.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:743–748.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Mixon, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1987. Low-cost weed control systems for close row peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:700–703.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis for experiments with two or three-factor designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip and conventional-tillage peanut. Weed Sci. 50:378–385.Google Scholar
Colvin, D. L., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G., and McGuire, J. 1985. Row pattern and weed management effects on peanut production. Peanut Sci. 12:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1997. Influence of herbicides and timing of application on broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:708–713.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 2002. Effect of continuous imidazolinone herbicide use on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) populations in peanut. Weed Technol. 16:880–884.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Brewer, K. D., and Langston, V. B. 2004. Using diclosulam in a weed control program for peanut in south Texas. Crop Prot. 23:1145–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 23:30–36.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Nester, P. R. 1997. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 11:714–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, T. D. 2003. Estimated Cost of Producing One Acre of Irrigated Peanut, North Florida. http://nfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Hewitt/budgets.htm. Accessed: November 2003.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Improving the management of dicot weeds in peanut with narrow row spacings and residual herbicides. Agron. J. 97:85–88.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, P. D., Spears, J. F., and Wells, R. 2003. Weed management in peanut planted in various row patterns. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:33.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway Ducar, J., Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2005. Weed management in southern peanut with diclosulam and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 19:870–874.Google Scholar
Price, A. J. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Weed management with diclosulam in strip-tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:29–36.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1996. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:360–364.Google Scholar
Swann, C. W. 2000. Weed management in peanut with diclosulam and imazapic. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:35.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Tredaway, J. A., Jordan, D. L., Brecke, B. J., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management in peanuts with reduce rates of diclosulam, flumioxazin, and imazapic. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:36.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. 2001. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states: cotton, soybean, peanut, tobacco, and forestry. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:260–269.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., and McGuire, J. A. 1984. Influence of twin rows on yield and weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 11:88–91.Google Scholar
Williams, E. J. and Drexler, J. S. 1981. A non-destructive method for determining peanut pos maturity. Peanut Sci. 8:134–141.Google Scholar
Wright, D. L., Marois, J. J., Rich, J. R., Sprenkel, R. K., and Whitty, E. B. 2001. Conservation tillage peanut production. Univ. of Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. AG187.Google Scholar
Yoder, D. C. 2003. Weed management and economic returns in peanut (Arachis hypogea) under different row patterns and tillage regimes. M.S. thesis. Gainesville, FL University of Florida. 73.Google Scholar