Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in Lewiston, NC, in 1999 and 2000 and Rocky Mount, NC, in 1999 to evaluate weed management systems in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut. The peanut cultivars grown were ‘NC 10C’, ‘NC 12C’, and ‘NC 7’, respectively. Weed management systems consisted of different combinations of preemergence (PRE) herbicides including diclosulam and flumioxazin plus commercial postemergence (POST) herbicide systems. Dimethenamid plus diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE controlled common lambsquarters, eclipta, and prickly sida at least 91%. Diclosulam and flumioxazin provided variable control of three Ipomoea species (59 to 91%) and bentazon plus acifluorfen POST provided > 90% control. Only diclosulam systems controlled yellow nutsedge 90% late season. Annual grass control required clethodim late POST, regardless of tillage system. Dimethenamid plus diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE produced equivalent yields and net returns with no significant differences between the two PRE options. Both systems produced higher yields and net returns than dimethenamid regardless of the POST herbicide option. The tillage production system did not influence weed control of eight weeds, peanut yields, or net returns. The addition of diclosulam or flumioxazin to dimethenamid PRE improved weed control compared with dimethenamid PRE alone.

Type
Research Article
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.

References

Anderson, R. J., Norris, A. E., and Hess, F. D. 1994. Synthetic organic chemicals that act through the porphyrin pathway. Pages 1833 In Duke, S. O. and Rebeiz, C. A., eds. Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 559. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:594598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. 2000. Peanut disease management. Pages 7186 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331.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. 13:450456.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. 13:771776.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yields in eight virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. W., Oliver, L. R., and Barrentine, J. L. 1998. Potential of diclosulam (Strongarm) for weed control in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:6162.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Grichar, W. J., et al. 2000. Strongarm and Dual Magnum combinations for weed control in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:3637.Google Scholar
Bradley, J. F. 1995. Success with no-till cotton. Pages 3138 In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2000. Peanut insect management. Pages 6977 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-331.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Kvien, C. K., Hook, J. E., and Stark, C. R. Jr. 1994. Weeds and herbicides of the Virginia-Carolina peanut market area. Appendix 3.1, Pages 139 In An Analysis of the Use and Benefits of Pesticides in U.S.-Grown Peanut: III Virginia-Carolina Production Region. Tifton, GA: National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 2000. 1999 outlook and situation. Pages 14 In 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication.Google Scholar
Colvin, D. L. and Brecke, B. J. 1988. Peanut cultivar response to tillage systems. Peanut Sci. 15:2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, D. L., Brecke, B. J., and Whitty, E. B. 1988. Tillage variables for peanut production. Peanut Sci. 15:9497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, D. L., Wehtje, G. R., Patterson, M., and Walker, R. H. 1985. Weed management in minimum-tillage peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) as influenced by cultivar, row spacing, and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:233237.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Porter, B. L., Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., Gricher, W. J., Prostko, E. P., and Lemon, R. G. 2000. Weed management in Texas peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:35.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. Pages 3738 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 23:3036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzios, K. K., ed. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement to the 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p. 104.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2000. Peanut production practices. Pages 818 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-331.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., and MacDonald, G. E. 2000. Weed management systems for control of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:33.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., MacDonald, G. E., Whitty, E. B., and Johnsong, F. A. 2001. Peanut weed control sytems with diclosulam and flumioxazin. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:8889.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Lemon, R. G., and Whitney, R. A. 1998. Weed control in peanut with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:59.Google Scholar
Samples, L. E. 1987. Land preparation. Pages 4142 In Georgia Peanut Production Guide. Athens, GA: Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.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
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:360364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, B. R., Braxton, L. B., Barrentine, J. L., Geselius, T. C., Grant, D. L., Langston, V. B., Redding, K. D., Richburg, J. S., and Roby, D. B. 1997. Diclosulam, a new herbicide for broadleaf weed control in soybeans and peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:161.Google Scholar
Sholar, J. R., Mozingo, R. W., and Beasley, J. P. Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. Pages 354382 In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Spears, J. F. 2000. Peanut seed supply and quality. Pages 47 In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-331.Google Scholar
Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L. 1991. Tillage practices for conservation. Page 232 In Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L., eds. Soil and Water Conservation. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:416420.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 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. 2000. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Colvin, D. L., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of herbicide systems for minimum-tillage peanut and conventional-tillage peanut. Peanut Sci. 14:8386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207244 In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.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. 6:177205.Google Scholar
Worsham, A. D. 1985. No-till tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 101126 In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482—a new N-phenyl phthalimide herbicide. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:6975.Google Scholar
Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. D. 1982. Harvesting, curing and energy utilization. Pages 458485 In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 24th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-cdxmh Total loading time: 0.322 Render date: 2021-01-24T14:00:55.228Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *