Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T19:23:42.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management Using Reduced Rate Combinations of Diclosulam, Flumioxazin, and Imazapic in Peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Tredaway Ducar ,
S. B. Clewis ,
J. W. Wilcut ,
D. L. Jordan ,
B. J. Brecke ,
W. J. Grichar ,
W. C. Johnson III  and
G. R. Wehtje
J. Tredaway Ducar*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
S. B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
J. W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
D. L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
B. J. Brecke
Affiliation:
University of Florida West Florida Research and Education Center, Milton, FL 32583
W. J. Grichar
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Department, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102-9410
W. C. Johnson III
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
G. R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University, Auburn University, AL 36849-5412
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted during 2000 and 2001 at a total of 13 locations throughout Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas to evaluate efficacy of herbicides at or below the manufacturer's suggested use rate. Herbicide applications included diclosulam and flumioxazin applied PRE alone or followed by imazapic applied early postemergence (EPOST). All possible combinations of diclosulam at 0, 13.5, or 27 g ai/ha and flumioxazin at 0, 53, or 105 g ai/ha applied PRE were included. Imazapic was applied at 35 g ai/ha. Ivyleaf morningglory was controlled more than 87% when imazapic was applied EPOST regardless of PRE herbicide. Pitted morningglory control > 67% was observed with applications of diclosulam (27 g/ha) followed by imazapic, diclosulam (13.5 g/ha) plus flumioxazin (53 g/ha), diclosulam (13.5 g/ha) plus flumioxazin (105 g/ha), and diclosulam (27 g/ha) plus flumioxazin (105 g/ha). Sicklepod was controlled more than 74% with flumioxazin (53 g/ha) followed by imazapic and diclosulam (27 g/ha) plus flumioxazin (105 g/ha) followed by imazapic. Florida beggarweed was controlled more than 84% by all PRE herbicide combinations except flumioxazin (53 g/ha) alone or diclosulam (27 g/ha) alone or with imazapic. Yellow nutsedge was controlled at least 90% with diclosulam at either rate followed by imazapic and by diclosulam plus flumioxazin followed by imazapic regardless of rate. Pod yield was generally higher when herbicides were applied regardless of herbicide combination or rate. Peanut yield was maximized with the lowest rates of flumioxazin or diclosulam PRE followed by imazapic EPOST.

Keywords

Diclosulamflumioxazinimazapic2,4-DBFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. DEDTOivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin and Barneby CASOByellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L., CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L., ‘Georgia Green’, ‘NC 12C’, ‘VA 98R’Herbicide rateFlorida beggarweedivyleaf morningglorypeanutpitted morningglorysicklepodyellow nutsedge
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 236 - 242
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, , 2001a. Cadre DG product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2001b. Strongarm product label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2002. Valor product label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA Corporation.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, 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. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol 13:450–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yield in eight Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol 14:402–405.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control in soybean (Glycine max) with reduced rates of bentazon and cultivation. Weed Sci 41:447–453.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Adrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with below-label rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 37:365–374.Google Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddux, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:834–840.Google Scholar
Doll, J., Doersch, R., Proost, R., and Kivlin, P. 1992. Reduced Herbicide Rates: Aspects to Consider. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension Publication A3563. 7–16.Google Scholar
Ducar, J. T., Brecke, B. J., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Weeds in the Sunshine: Weed Management in Peanuts—2002. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service SS-AGR-03.Google Scholar
Eadie, A. G., Swanton, C. J., Shaw, J. E., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. Banded herbicide applications and cultivation in a modified no-till corn (Zea mays) system. Weed Technol 6:535–542.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. In Camper, N. D. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 29–46.Google Scholar
Gebhart, M. R. 1981. Preemergence herbicides and cultivations for soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 29:165–168.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1991. Maximizing herbicide efficiency with mixtures and expert systems. Weed Technol 5:894–897.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Eastin, E. F. 2001. Influence of application rate and timing of diclosulam on weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci 28:13–19.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). Peanut Sci 29:24–29.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Wehtje, G. R. 2005. Residual herbicide weed control systems in peanut. Weed Technol 19:560–567.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Gerngross, C. A., Lemon, R. L., Senseman, S. A., Besler, B. A., and Langston, V. B. 2001. Interaction of peanut variety, diclosulam rate, and temperature on seed germination. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:200.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., Gale, A., Nichols, R. L., and Patterson, R. M. 1982. Effects of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Sci 30:602–604.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. and Kudsk, P. 1988. Prediction of herbicide activity. Weed Res 28:473–478.Google Scholar
Karnei, J. R., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., and Baughman, T. A. 2001. Diclosulam performance in Texas High Plains peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:37.Google Scholar
Karnei, J. R., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., and Baughman, T. A. 2002. Weed control and peanut response to diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:32.Google Scholar
Klingman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. T., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Response of three runner-type peanut cultivars to diclosulam. Weed Technol 16:593–596.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. T., Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2003. Response of three runner-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol 17:89–93.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. 1990. Reducing herbicide inputs when establishing no-till soybeans. Weed Technol 4:14–19.Google Scholar
Murphree, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., and Grichar, W. J. 2003. Response of five peanut varieties to diclosulam and flumioxazin in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:34.Google Scholar
Muyonga, C. M., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1996. Weed control with reduced rates of four soil applied soybean herbicides. Weed Sci 44:148–155.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service U. S. Department of Agriculture 2006 Crop Production Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2007/CropProdSu-01-12-2007.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2007.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
Prostko, E. P. and Meade, J. P. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 7:365–369.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. K., and Kevien, C. K. 1995. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars to the herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci 22:76–80.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. Toxicity of AC 263,222 to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci 42:398–402.Google Scholar
Rosales-Robles, E., Chandler, J. M., Senseman, S. A., and Prostko, E. P. 1999. Influence of growth stage and herbicide rate on postemergence johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol 13:525–529.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
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 38:541–545.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 reduced rates of diclosulam, flumioxazin, and imazapic. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:36.Google Scholar
Warren, L. S. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1999. Managing purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) populations utilizing herbicide strategies and crop rotation sequences. Weed Technol 13:494–503.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 54:261–263.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey (most common and most troublesome): broadleaf crops subsection: cotton, soybean, peanut, tobacco, and forestry. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:249–250.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. 2001. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol 15:137–140.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut. Weed Sci 44:104–110.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
Zhang, J., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol 14:106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar