Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:23:32.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis ,
Shawn D. Askew  and
John W. Wilcut
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in Lewiston, NC, in 1999 and 2000 and Rocky Mount, NC, in 1999 to evaluate weed management systems in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut. The peanut cultivars grown were ‘NC 10C’, ‘NC 12C’, and ‘NC 7’, respectively. Weed management systems consisted of different combinations of preemergence (PRE) herbicides including diclosulam and flumioxazin plus commercial postemergence (POST) herbicide systems. Dimethenamid plus diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE controlled common lambsquarters, eclipta, and prickly sida at least 91%. Diclosulam and flumioxazin provided variable control of three Ipomoea species (59 to 91%) and bentazon plus acifluorfen POST provided > 90% control. Only diclosulam systems controlled yellow nutsedge 90% late season. Annual grass control required clethodim late POST, regardless of tillage system. Dimethenamid plus diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE produced equivalent yields and net returns with no significant differences between the two PRE options. Both systems produced higher yields and net returns than dimethenamid regardless of the POST herbicide option. The tillage production system did not influence weed control of eight weeds, peanut yields, or net returns. The addition of diclosulam or flumioxazin to dimethenamid PRE improved weed control compared with dimethenamid PRE alone.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazonclethodimdiclosulamdimethenamidflumioxazincommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. ECLALprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. SIDSPyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESpeanut, ‘NC-7’, ‘NC-10’, ‘NC-12’, Arachis hypogaea L.Weed managementpeanut yieldnet return
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , June 2002 , pp. 378 - 385
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

Anderson, R. J., Norris, A. E., and Hess, F. D. 1994. Synthetic organic chemicals that act through the porphyrin pathway. Pages 18–33 In Duke, S. O. and Rebeiz, C. A., eds. Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 559. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.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.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. 2000. Peanut disease management. Pages 71–86 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331.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.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. W., Oliver, L. R., and Barrentine, J. L. 1998. Potential of diclosulam (Strongarm) for weed control in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:61–62.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Grichar, W. J., et al. 2000. Strongarm and Dual Magnum combinations for weed control in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:36–37.Google Scholar
Bradley, J. F. 1995. Success with no-till cotton. Pages 31–38 In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2000. Peanut insect management. Pages 69–77 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331.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, Pages 1–39 In 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.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 2000. 1999 outlook and situation. Pages 1–4 In 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication.Google Scholar
Colvin, D. L. and Brecke, B. J. 1988. Peanut cultivar response to tillage systems. Peanut Sci. 15:21–24.Google Scholar
Colvin, D. L., Brecke, B. J., and Whitty, E. B. 1988. Tillage variables for peanut production. Peanut Sci. 15:94–97.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
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. Pages 37–38 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 23:30–36.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K., ed. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement to the 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p. 104.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2000. Peanut production practices. Pages 8–18 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-331.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.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., MacDonald, G. E., Whitty, E. B., and Johnsong, F. A. 2001. Peanut weed control sytems with diclosulam and flumioxazin. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:88–89.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Lemon, R. G., and Whitney, R. A. 1998. Weed control in peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:59.Google Scholar
Samples, L. E. 1987. Land preparation. Pages 41–42 In Georgia Peanut Production Guide. Athens, GA: Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.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
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
Sheppard, B. R., Braxton, L. B., Barrentine, J. L., Geselius, T. C., Grant, D. L., Langston, V. B., Redding, K. D., Richburg, J. S., and Roby, D. B. 1997. Diclosulam, a new herbicide for broadleaf weed control in soybeans and peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:161.Google Scholar
Sholar, J. R., Mozingo, R. W., and Beasley, J. P. Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. Pages 354–382 In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Spears, J. F. 2000. Peanut seed supply and quality. Pages 4–7 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-331.Google Scholar
Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L. 1991. Tillage practices for conservation. Page 232 In Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L., eds. Soil and Water Conservation. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.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. 1997. Summary of flumioxazin performance in southeastern peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:7.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. 2000. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137–140.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Colvin, D. L., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of herbicide systems for minimum-tillage peanut and conventional-tillage peanut. Peanut Sci. 14:83–86.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). Pages 207–244 In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.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
Worsham, A. D. 1985. No-till tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 101–126 In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482—a new N-phenyl phthalimide herbicide. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:69–75.Google Scholar
Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. D. 1982. Harvesting, curing and energy utilization. Pages 458–485 In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar