Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:11:47.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Single- vs. Twin-Row Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Barry J. Brecke  and
Daniel O. Stephenson IV
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, Agronomy Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida, 5988 Highway 90, Building 4900, Milton, FL 32583
Daniel O. Stephenson IV*
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, Agronomy Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida, 5988 Highway 90, Building 4900, Milton, FL 32583
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in Florida in 2000 through 2003 to evaluate weed management systems in single- and twin-row peanut utilizing either conventional or strip tillage. Diclosulam or flumioxazin preemergence (PRE) or 2,4-DB or imazapic mid-postemergence (MPOST) or late-postemergence (LPOST) was needed for greater than 95% common cocklebur control in conventional- and strip-tillage peanut. In both tillage systems, paraquat + bentazon early-postemergence (EPOST) followed by (fb) 2,4-DB or imazapic MPOST, 2,4-DB or chlorimuron LPOST, or both was required for more than 80% late-season control of Florida beggarweed and control in twin-row was 5 to 10 percentage points above that observed with single-row peanut. Paraquat + bentazon EPOST preceded by a diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE or fb MPOST or LPOST applications provided 80% or greater control of ivyleaf morningglory, and no differences were observed between peanut planting pattern. Paraquat + bentazon EPOST fb imazapic MPOST was the only treatment that provided 90% or greater late-season sicklepod control across all years and tillage methods, and, regardless of tillage, sicklepod control was 7 percentage points better in twin- than single-row peanut. Treatments that contained diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE and paraquat + bentazon EPOST fb a MPOST or LPOST herbicide application increased peanut yield compared to nontreated in conventional- and strip-tillage peanut. Averaged over all herbicide treatments, years, and tillage methods, peanut seeded in twin rows yielded 300 kg/ha more than in single rows.

Keywords

2,4-DBbentazondiclosulamchlorimuronflumioxazinimazapicimazethapyrparaquatpyridatecommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. # DEDTOivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacqsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. # CASOBpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Georgia Green’ and ‘C-99R’Narrow-rowdouble-rowtillageEPOST, early-postemergencefb, followed byLPOST, late-postemergenceMPOST, mid-postemergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceTSWV, tomato spotted wilt tospovirusWAP, weeks after plantingWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 368 - 376
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.)

Footnotes

1 This research was supported by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and approved for publication as Journal Series R-10938.
Current address: Cropping Systems Agronomist, Northeast Research and Extension Center, University of Arkansas, P.O. Box 48, Keiser, AR 72351.

References

Literature Cited

Aerts, M. J. and Nesheim, O. N. 2001. Florida crop/pest management profiles: peanuts. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Web page: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI044. Modified March 2001; Accessed February 28, 2005; verified May 31, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. 21st ed. New York: Chemical and Pharmaceutical Publishing. 2647 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
Baldwin, J. and Williams, J. 2002. Effects of twin rows on yield and grade. Peanut Grower 14:28–29.Google Scholar
Berg, W. A., Smith, S. J., and Coleman, G. A. 1988. Management effects of runoff, soil, and nutrient losses from highly erodible soils in the southern plains. J. Soil Water Conserv. 43:407–410.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Weed management in peanut. in Pimental, D., ed. CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 239–251.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J., Wehtje, G., and Paudel, K. 2002. Comparison between diclosulam- and imazapic-based weed control systems in peanut. Peanut Sci. 29:52–57.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cardina, J., Mixon, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1987. Low-cost weed control systems for close-row peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:700–703.Google Scholar
Colvin, D. L., Wehtje, G. R., Patterson, M., and Walker, R. H. 1985. Weed management in minimum-tillage peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) as influenced by cultivar, row spacing, and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:233–237.Google Scholar
Edenfield, M. W., Colvin, D. L., Brecke, B. J., Shilling, D. G., and McLean, H. H. 2001. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with pyridate and SAN 582 systems. Weed Technol. 15:13–18.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, M. R., Daniel, T. C., Schweizer, E. E., and Allmaras, R. R. 1985. Conservation tillage. Science 230:625–630.Google Scholar
Gorbet, D. W. and Shokes, F. M. 2002. Registration of ‘C-99R’ peanut. Crop Sci. 42:2207.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., Eastin, E. F., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Influence of flumioxazin rate and herbicide combinations on weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 29:24–29.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., Hancock, H. G., and Davis, J. W. 2004. Influence of sulfentrazone rate and application method of peanut weed control. Weed Technol. 18:619–625.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., and Paudel, K. P. 1995. Comparison of imazethapyr and paraquat-based weed control systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1998. Long term effects of three tillage systems on peanut grade, yield, and stem rot development. Peanut Sci. 25:59–62.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2004. Effect of row spacing and herbicide dose on weed control and grain sorghum yield. Crop Prot. 23:263–267.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Colburn, A. E., and Kearney, N. S. 1994. Herbicides for reduced tillage in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the southwest. Weed Technol. 8:212–216.Google Scholar
Hicks, T. V., Wehtje, G. R., and Wilcut, J. W. 1990. Weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with pyridate. Weed Technol. 4:493–495.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2000. Evaluation of tillage implements for stale seedbed tillage in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 14:519–523.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
Jordan, D. L., Barnes, J. S., Bogle, C. R., Brandenburg, R. L., Bailey, J. E., Johnson, P. D., and Culpepper, A. S. 2003. Peanut response to cultivar selection, digging data, and tillage intensity. Agron. J. 95:380–385.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Barnes, J. S., Bogle, C. R., Naderman, G. C., Roberson, G. T., and Johnson, P. D. 2001. Peanut response to tillage and fertilization. Agron. J. 93:1125–1130.Google Scholar
Kidder, G., Chambliss, C. G., and Mylavarapu, R. 2002. UF/IFAS standardized fertilization recommendations for agronomic crops. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Web page: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SS163. Modified March 2002; Accessed March 3, 2005; verified May 31, 2005.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Jordan, D. L., Spears, J. F., Wells, R., Johnson, P. D., Barnes, J. S., Hurt, C. A., Brandenburg, R. L., and Bailey, J. E. 2004. Peanut response to planting pattern, row spacing, and irrigation. Agron. J. 96:1066–1072.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:233–238.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.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide Release 9.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. 2002. Preemergence flumioxazin and pendimethalin and postemergence herbicide systems for soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. T. 2001. Effect of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth. Weed Technol. 15:413–418.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. 2001. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:260–270.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Cardina, J. 2004. A review of the biology and ecology of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Weed Sci. 52:185–200.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 peanut. Peanut Sci. 11:88–91.Google Scholar
Whitty, E. B. 2002. Basic cultural practices for peanuts. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Web page: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AA258. Modified November 2002; Accessed February 28, 2005; verified May 31, 2005).Google Scholar
Whitty, E. B. and Chambliss, C. G. 2002. Fertilization of Agronomic Crops. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Web page: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AA130. Modified April 2002; Accessed March 3, 2005; verified May 31, 2005.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:416–420.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G. L., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 44:615–621.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Hicks, T. V. 1990. Evaluation of herbicides systems in minimum- and conventional-tillage peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:243–248.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
Wright, D. L., Wiatrak, P. J., Pudelko, J. A., Kidd, B., and Koziara, W. 1999. Nitrogen and tillage comparisons of conventional and ultra-narrow row cotton. in Hook, J. E., ed. Proceedings of the Conservation Tillage Conference, Tifton, GA, July 6–8, 1999. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 90–93.Google Scholar
Wright, F. S. and Porter, D. M. 1995. Conservational tillage and cultivar influence on peanut production. Peanut Sci. 22:120–124.Google Scholar