Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-42xl8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-07T16:17:26.341Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Low-Cost Weed Control Systems for Close-Row Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John Cardina
U.S. Dep. Agric. Res. Serv., Agron. Dep., Univ. Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA
Aubrey C. Mixon
U.S. Dep. Agric. Res. Serv., Agron. Dep., Univ. Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA
Glenn R. Wehtje
Agron. Dep., Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830


Weed control, yield, quality, and net return in reduced-cost and standard weed control systems were studied in “Sunbelt runner’ peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) planted in a twin-row pattern in 1982 to 85 at Tifton, GA, and 1982 to 84 at Headland, AL. Reduced herbicide rates and/or less expensive herbicides were used to decrease weed control costs. In years and locations where weed populations were low there were no differences in weed control, crop yield, or quality. The lowest cost treatment, which included three applications of paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion), caused reduced weed control at both locations in 1982 and reduced yield in 1982 and 1984. None of the systems consistently resulted in the highest weed control, crop yield, or quality. A system including reduced rates of preplant-incorporated herbicides followed by two applications of paraquat performed as well as the standard system but cost about 40% less. Due to low cost and generally high yields this system resulted in consistently high net returns. Results indicate that the potential exists for reducing herbicide inputs without sacrificing yield or quality.

Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright © 1987 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.)


Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. American Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Inc. Yoakum.Google Scholar
2. Colvin, D. L., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G., and McGuire, J. A. 1985. Row pattern and weed management effects on peanut production. Peanut Sci. 12:2227.Google Scholar
3. Garren, K. H. 1961. Control of Sclerotium rolfsii through cultural practices. Symposium on Sclerotium rolfsii . Phytopathol. 51:120124.Google Scholar
4. Hauser, E. W., Dowler, C. C., Jellum, M. D., and Cecil, S. R. 1974. Effects of herbicide-crop rotation on nutsedge, annual weeds, and crops. Weed Sci. 22:172176.Google Scholar
5. Hauser, E. W. and Parham, S. A. 1969. Effects of annual weeds and cultivation on yield of peanuts. Weed Res. 9:192197.Google Scholar
6. Waller, R. A. and Duncan, D. B. 1969. A bayes rule for the symmetric multiple comparison problem. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64:14841499.Google Scholar
7. Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., and McGuire, J. A. 1984. Influence of twin rows on yield and weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 11:8891.Google Scholar