Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:48:38.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Southeastern Peanut with Diclosulam and Flumioxazin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher L. Main ,
Joyce Tredaway Ducar ,
E. Ben Whitty  and
Gregory E. MacDonald
Christopher L. Main*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
Joyce Tredaway Ducar
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
E. Ben Whitty
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
Gregory E. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Marianna, FL during 1999 and 2000 to evaluate weed control and peanut response to PPI treatments of diclosulam alone, PRE treatments of flumioxazin alone, and in systems with POST commercial standard herbicides. Diclosulam and flumioxazin alone did not control sicklepod. Paraquat plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB applied early POST fb chlorimuron plus 2,4-DB or imazapic controlled sicklepod and pitted morningglory at least 83%. These treatments were equal to or greater than diclosulam or flumioxazin with or without paraquat plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB, or the same system fb 2,4-DB mid POST. Peanut yield was similar when treated with diclosulam or flumioxazin fb the standard early POST (EPOST) system, flumioxazin alone, or imazapic alone. Peanut treated with diclosulam alone or paraquat plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB fb 2,4-DB yielded lower than other treatments because of late-emerging Florida beggarweed. Peanut treated with chlorimuron, regardless of which soil-applied herbicide was used, yielded less due to a longer period of interference from Florida beggarweed, sicklepod, and pitted morningglory because of the timing of chlorimuron application (60 d after planting).

Keywords

Bentazonchlorimurondiclosulamflumioxazinimazapicparaquat2,4-DBFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum S. DC # DEDTOpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Georgia Green’Bentazonchlorimuronimazapicparaquat2,4-DBpeanutArachis hypogaea L. ‘Georgia Green’ALS, acetolactase synthaseEPOST, early postermergencefb, followed byWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 870 - 874
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Clemson University Pee Dee Research and Education Center, 2200 Pocket Road, Florence, SC 29506.
Current address: Berry College, P.O. Box 5003, Mt. Berry, GA 30149

References

Literature Cited

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., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999a. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999b. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:771–776.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence eight Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402–405.Google Scholar
Brooks, N. L. and Ali, M. B. 1995. Peanuts, state-level production costs, characteristics and input use, 1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Pp. 13 and 21.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Hook, J. E. 1989. Factors influencing germination and emergence of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Weed Technol. 3:402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R., 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. 29–46.Google 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
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. 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
Johnson, W. C. III. 1987. The hull scrape method to assess peanut maturity. Georgia Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. 958.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway Ducar, J., Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2003. Response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 17:89–93.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway Ducar, J., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 16:593–596.Google Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1999. Applied Weed Science. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 259 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 1996. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Institute. 1028 p.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
Sims, G. R., Wehtje, G. R., 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
Tredaway, J. A. 2002. 2002 Weed management for agronomic crops and non-crop areas in Florida. Univ. of Florida Coop. Ext. Service, SS-AGR-20.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002a. Flumioxazin. in Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 200 p.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002b. Flumioxazin injury to peanut. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 55:195.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. The southern states ten most common and ten most troublesome weeds in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:249.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Wilcut, J. W., and Coble, H. D. 1997. Influence of AC 263,222 rate and application method on weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:520–526.Google Scholar
Whitty, E. B., Gorbet, D. W., and Kucharek, T. A. 2000. Management of late-maturing peanut varieties. Univ. of Florida Coop. Ext. Service, SS-AGR-75.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Patterson, M. G., Cole, T. A., and Vint Hicks, T. 1989. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied chlorimuron in soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:175–180.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. The control and interaction of weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 6:177–205.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Cranmer, J. 1997. Summary of flumioxazin performance in southeastern peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:7.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
Wood, P. A. 1983. Weed Science: Principles. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Pp. 33–34, 44, 101.Google Scholar
Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. H. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research Education Society. Pp. 458–487.Google Scholar