Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:14:35.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Response to Residual and In-Season Treatments of CGA-362622

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dunk Porterfield  and
John W. Wilcut
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to determine peanut tolerance to CGA-362622 applied preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) and to determine the potential for CGA-362622 applied PRE and POST to cotton to injure peanut grown in rotation the following year. CGA-362622 at 3.75 and 7.5 g ai/ha applied PRE visually injured peanut 11 and 16%, respectively, at 5 wk after treatment (WAT) but did not influence peanut yield. POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha injured peanut 63 and 93%, respectively, at 4 WAT and reduced peanut stand by 53 and 89% at 11 WAT, respectively. Peanut pod yield was reduced 73.1 and 97.9% by CGA-362622 POST at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha, respectively, compared with the untreated weed-free control. CGA-362622 PRE at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha reduced peanut pod yield 7.5 and 12.6%, respectively. Cotton was injured 9% or less by CGA-362622 PRE or POST at 3.75 or 7.5 g/ha and up to 25% with CGA-362622 POST at 15 g/ha. However, CGA-362622 did not influence weed-free cotton lint yields, regardless of method or rate of application. Peanuts grown in rotation were not injured, and yields were not influenced by CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST the previous year to cotton.

Keywords

CGA-362622, N-[4,6-dimethoxy-(2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium saltcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Carryovercrop injurysulfonylurea herbicideALS, acetolactate synthaseEPOST, early postemergenceLPOST, late postemergenceMPOST, mid postemergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 441 - 445
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. 1998a. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth. 132 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998b. Classic product label. In 1998 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 726–731.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998c. Cadre product label. In 1998 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 135–136.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998d. Pursuit product label. In 1998 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 200–208.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998e. Staple product label. In 1998 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 838–844.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50: 293–298.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. E. 2000. Peanut disease management. In 2000 Peanut Information. Publication AG-331. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 71–86.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Diclosulam systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16: 807–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13: 771–776.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavey, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37: 820–824.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16: 749–754.Google Scholar
Cox, F. R. and Sholar, J. R. 1995. Site selection, land preparation, and management of soil fertility. In Peanut Health Management. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society. pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 441 p.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. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA-362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 163–165.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Johnson, D. H., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1993a. Carryover of DPX-PE350 to grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and soybean (Glycine max) on two Arkansas soils. Weed Technol. 7: 645–649.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1993b. DPX-PE350 for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 20: 97–101.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in peanuts. In 2000 Peanut Information. Publication AG-331. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 32–55.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 7: 153–155.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002a. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50: 438–447.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002b. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and nonglyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50: 506–512.Google Scholar
Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriguez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society. pp. 236–410.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50: 642–647.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton cultivars (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16: 180–183.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 2002. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16: 724–730.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. 11 p.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988a. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36: 90–95.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988b. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed response to CGA-362622 alone and in combinations with bromoxynil, glyphosate, and pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41: 58.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
Sims, G. R., Wehtje, G., McGuire, J. A., and Hicks, T. V. 1987. Weed control and response of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 14: 42–45.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 51: 13–18.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. In Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 627–661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut. Rev. Weed Sci. 6: 177–205.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 1994. Peanut control in rotational crops. Peanut Sci. 21: 40–43.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1993. Insecticides do not affect cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 41: 269–280.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Potential for Pursuit and Cadre applied to peanuts to carryover to cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 602.Google Scholar
Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. D. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society. pp. 458–485.Google Scholar