Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T22:57:58.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Management in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with Imazethapyr and Metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John S. Richburg III
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sciences, Box 748, Univ. Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sciences, Box 748, Univ. Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748
E. Ford Eastin
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sciences, Box 748, Univ. Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748

Abstract

Field studies at three sites in Georgia evaluated broadleaf weed and nutsedge management in peanut with PPI applications of imazethapyr and metolachlor and POST applications of paraquat in mixture with imazethapyr or bentazon. Imazethapyr at 36 g ai/ha applied PPI alone or in mixture with metolachlor at 2750 g ai/ha controlled coffee senna; entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, smallflower, and tall morningglories; bristly starbur; and prickly sida better than metolachlor applied PPI. Yellow nutsedge control was generally higher where metolachlor was applied PPI. Postemergence control of the aforementioned species and sicklepod was similar with paraquat plus imazethapyr and paraquat plus bentazon. Peanut yields with paraquat plus imazethapyr and paraquat plus bentazon were similar. With one exception, peanut yields from imazethapyr PPI systems were higher than metolachlor PPI systems when POST herbicides were not used. Inclusion of metolachlor with PPI application of imazethapyr increased yields only at one location.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Brown, S. M. 1992. Imazethapyr (Pursuit) in peanuts: Observations in Georgia from the first year. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:109.Google Scholar
2. Cardina, J. and Swann, C. W. 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci. 15:5760.Google Scholar
3. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:397399.Google Scholar
4. Grichar, W. J., Nester, P. R., and Colburn, A. E. 1992. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6:396400.Google Scholar
5. Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr application. Weed Sci. 40:227232.Google Scholar
6. Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of foliar and/or soil applied imazethapyr to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (C. esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 7:900905.Google Scholar
7. Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1992. Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) and associated weeds. Weed Sci. 40:9095.Google Scholar
8. Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1988. Relative tolerance of peanut to alachlor and metolachlor. Peanut Sci. 15:5356.Google Scholar
9. Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., McGuire, J. A., and Hicks, T. V. 1991. Foliar penetration and phytotoxicity of paraquat as influenced by peanut cultivar. Peanut Sci. 18:6771.Google Scholar
10. 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. 39:238242.Google Scholar
11. Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18:2630.Google Scholar
12. Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:177205.Google Scholar
13. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Hicks, T. V., and Cole, T. A. 1990. Postemergence weed management systems for peanut. Weed Technol. 4:7680.Google Scholar
14. Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G., Jones, S. R., and Iverson, M. J. 1994. Imidazolinone herbicide systems for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 21:2328.Google Scholar
15. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems without dinoseb for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:385391.Google Scholar
16. Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Eastin, E. F., Wiley, G. R., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Newell, S. 1994. Imazethapyr and paraquat systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 42:601607.Google Scholar
17. York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1993. Insecticides do not affect cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 41:269280.Google Scholar
18. York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Potential for Pursuit and Cadre applied to peanuts to carry over to cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:602.Google Scholar
19. York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., Jordan, D. L., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1995. Efficacy of imazethapyr in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) as affected by time of application. Weed Sci. 43:107116.Google Scholar