Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:15:22.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management with Diclosulam in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Price ,
John W. Wilcut  and
Charles W. Swann
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, VA 23437
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, VA 23437
Charles W. Swann
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, VA 23437
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at three locations in North Carolina in 1998 and 1999 and one location in Virginia in 1998 to evaluate weed management systems in peanut. Treatments consisted of diclosulam alone preemergence (PRE), or diclosulam plus metolachlor PRE alone or followed by (fb) bentazon plus acifluorfen postemergence (POST). These systems were also compared with commercial standards of metolachlor PRE fb bentazon plus acifluorfen POST or imazapic POST. Our data indicate that diclosulam PRE plus metolachlor PRE in conventional tillage peanut production usually controlled common lambsquarters, common ragweed, prickly sida, and entireleaf morningglory. But control of spurred anoda, goosegrass, ivyleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, and pitted morningglory by this system was inconsistent and may require additional POST herbicide treatments. Systems that included diclosulam plus metolachlor PRE consistently provided high yields and net returns.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, bentazon, diclosulam, imazapic, metolachlor; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEAL; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBEL; entireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integruiscula Grey # IPOHG; goosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEIN; ivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq # IPOHE; large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop. # DIGSA; pitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLA; prickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSP; spurred anoda, Anoda cristata L. # ANVCR; peanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 10C’, ‘NC 12C’Economic analysisfb, followed by; POST, postemergence; PPI, preplant incorporated; PRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 724 - 730
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. 2000. Strongarm product label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 5 p.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: 594–595.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. 2000. Peanut disease management in 2000. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication. pp. 71–86.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Dotray, P. A., and Gricher, W. J. et al. 2000. Strongarm and Dual Magnum combinations for weed control in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 36.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2000. Peanut insect management. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331. pp. 69–77.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Kvien, C. K., Hook, J. E., and Stark, C. R. Jr. 1994. Weeds and herbicides of the Virginia-Carolina peanut market area. Appendix 3.1. In Bridges, D.C., ed, An Analysis of the Use and Benefits of Pesticides in U.S.-Grown Peanut: III Virginia-Carolina Production Region. Tifton, GA: National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory. pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 2000. 1999 Outlook and situation. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Porter, B. L., Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., Gricher, W. J., Prostko, E. P., and Lemon, R. G. 2000. Weed management in Texas peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 35.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: South. Weed Sci. Soc. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2000. Peanut production practices. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331. pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., and MacDonald, G. E. 2000. Weed management systems for control of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Proc South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 33–34.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.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
Prostko, E. P. and Baughman, T. A. 1999. Peanut Herbicide Symptomology Guide. Texas Agricultural Extension Service SCS-1999-05. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Lemon, R. G., and Whitney, R. A. 1998. Weed control in peanuts with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 59.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
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
Spears, J. F. 2000. Peanut supply and quality. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331. pp. 4–7.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18: 26–30.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Hicks, T. V. 1990. Evaluation of herbicide systems in minimum and conventional tillage peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38: 243–248.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 timing of application. Weed Sci. 43: 107–116.Google Scholar