Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:27:13.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tropic Croton (Croton glandulosus) Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Va. Polytech. Inst. & State Univ., Suffolk, VA 23437
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies in 1988 and 1989 evaluated POST herbicides alone and in tank-mixtures for tropic croton control in peanut. Acifluorfen + 2,4-DB, acifluorfen + bentazon, acifluorfen + bentazon + 2,4-DB controlled > 90% of tropic croton when applied at 2 or 4 wk after crop emergence. Paraquat + bentazon controlled 55% at 2 wk and 24% at 4 wk after crop emergence. Imazethapyr and imazethapyr + 2,4-DB controlled < 24% tropic croton at either 2 or 4 wk after crop emergence. Acifluorfen + 2,4-DB, acifluorfen + bentazon, and acifluorfen + bentazon + 2,4-DB controlled at least 90% of the common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and morningglory species. Greatest yields and net returns were obtained with acifluorfen + bentazon + 2,4-DB applied 2 wk after crop emergence. Yields were higher with acifluorfen + bentazon + 2,4-DB and imazethapyr applied at 2 wk after crop emergence than at 4 wk after crop emergence. All other herbicide treatments provided equivalent yields among application timings. Only acifluorfen + 2,4-DB provided equivalent net returns at either application timing. All other herbicide treatments provided lower net returns with applications made at 4 wk than at 2 wk after crop emergence.

Keywords

acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidbentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4-(3H)-one 2,2-dioxideimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion2,4-DB, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidtropic croton, Croton glandulosus var. septentrionalis Muell.-Arg. ♯ CVNGScommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. ♯ AMBELmorningglory species, Ipomoea spp.Economic analysisnet returnsAMBELCHEALCVNGSIPOZZ
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 795 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the 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

1. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1983. Weeds and their control in peanuts. p. 206–249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., ed. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
2. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, marketing of peanuts in the Unites States. p. 571–623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., ed. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
3. Driver, T., and Oliver, L. R. 1985. Control of woolly croton (Croton capitatus) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:727–729.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed Survey-Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408–420.Google Scholar
5. Gallimore, G. G., Updike, G. H., and Sturt, S. G. III. 1988–1989. Crop enterprise cost analysis for southeast Virginia. Virginia Coop. Ext. Serv. Va. Polytech. Inst. & State Univ., Blacksburg, VA. 43 p.Google Scholar
6. Gleason, H. A. 1968. The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Vol. 2. Hafner Publ. Co., New York, NY. 655 p.Google Scholar
7. Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1978. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 p.Google Scholar
8. 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.Google Scholar
9. Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., and Hagwood, H. B. 1991. Lactofen systems for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 4:819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Weed control, yield, and net returns using imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 39:238–242.Google Scholar
12. Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Wilcut, J. W., and Walls, F. R. 1990. Herbicide combinations for weed control in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:71.Google Scholar
14. Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1987. Snapbean (Phaseolus vulgaria) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) response to acifluorfen. Weed Technol. 1:18–21.Google Scholar
15. Young, J. H., Person, N. K. Jr., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. D. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. p. 458–485 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., ed. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar