Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:45:13.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phytotoxicity of Delayed Applications of Flumioxazin on Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III ,
Eric P. Prostko  and
Benjamin G. Mullinix JR.
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service
Eric P. Prostko
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Benjamin G. Mullinix JR.
Affiliation:
Coastal Plain Experimental Station, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Trials were conducted under weed-free conditions in 2001, 2002, and 2003 on a loamy sand soil in Georgia to investigate the phytotoxicity of flumioxazin on peanut, and in separate trials, the effects on peanut maturity. The first study evaluated time of flumioxazin application (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 d after planting [DAP]) and flumioxazin rate (nontreated, 71, and 105 g ai/ha). Peanut (variety ‘C99R’) were seeded 3.2 cm deep and irrigated immediately after seeding. Flumioxazin applied to peanut 6, 8, and 10 DAP significantly injured peanut (20 to 59%) early season, with more phytotoxicity from flumioxazin at 105 g/ha than 71 g/ha. However, peanut stand was not reduced by any of the times of application or rates. Peanut recovered by midseason, except in cases of severe (up to 49%) visual phytotoxic injury. Peanut yields were not affected by either flumioxazin application timing or rate. The second study (variety ‘Georgia Green’) evaluated flumioxazin applied at 105 g/ha at varying intervals after planting to determine the phytotoxic effects on peanut maturity using the hull-scrape method. Peanut maturity was delayed by flumioxazin when applied 1 d after planting and later. These results show that the optimum time of application is from immediately after planting to 2 d after planting, but ideally, the application should be made immediately after planting. The highest recommended flumioxazin rate, 105 g/ha, is not significantly phytotoxic when applied within the recommended range of timings and has no effect on yield. However, there is potential for yield loss as peanut maturity is delayed in cases of severe injury.

Keywords

Peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.flumioxazinHull-scrape methodpeanut injurypeanut maturityDAEdays after emergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 157 - 163
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. 2004. Valor® WP Herbicide Product Label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Crammer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Kvien, C. K., Hook, J. E., and Stark, C. R. 1994. An analysis of the use and benefits of pesticides in U.S. grown peanuts: III. Southeastern Production Region. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia NESPAL Report 1994-002.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Todd, J., Culbreath, A., Baldwin, J., Beasley, J., Kemerait, B., and Pappu, H. 2001. Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut: Identifying and Avoiding High Risk Situations. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 1165.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:743–748.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Swann, C. W. 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci. 15:57–60.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.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Vencill, W. K. 2003. Flumioxazin soil persistence and mineralization in laboratory experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:4719–4721.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., Prostko, E. P., Bridges, D. C., Johnson, W. C. III, Eastin, E. F., Vencill, W. K., Brecke, B. J., MacDonald, G. E., Tredaway, J. A., Everest, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Residual weed control with imazapic, diclosulam, and flumioxazin in southeastern peanut. Peanut Sci. 30:23–28.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2002. Citronmelon (Citrullus lanatus var. citroides) control in Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea) using soil applied herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:481–484.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2004a. Control of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) using flumioxazin. Peanut Sci. 31:17–21.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Dotray, P. A., Johnson, W. C. III, and Prostko, E. P. 2004b. Interaction of flumioxazin with dimethenamid or metolachlor in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 31:12–16.CrossRefGoogle 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
Johnson, W. C. III. 1987. The Hull Scrape Method to Assess Peanut Maturity. Tifton, GA: Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 958.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Beasley, J. P. Jr., Thompson, S. S., Womack, H., Swann, C. W., and Samples, L. E. 1987. Georgia Peanut Production Guide. Tifton, GA: Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Special Publication 23.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Brown, S. M. 1993. Effect of chlorimuron and 2,4-DB on peanut growth, maturity, and yield. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:42.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Chamberlin, J. R., Brenneman, T. B., Todd, J. W., Mullinix, B. G. Jr., and Cardina, J. 1993. Effects of paraquat and alachlor on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) growth, maturity, and yield. Weed Technol. 7:855–859.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swann, C. W. 2002. Rainfall as a factor impacting peanut tolerance to flumioxazin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:32–33.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–259.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
Williams, E. J. and Drexler, J. S. 1981. A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity. Peanut Sci. 8:134–141.Google Scholar
Williams, E. J., Ware, G. O., Lai, J., and Drexler, J. S. 1987. Effect of pod maturity and plant age on pod and seed size determinations of Florunner peanuts. Peanut Sci. 14:79–83.Google Scholar