Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T04:50:15.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Herbicide Systems in Minimum- and Conventional-Tillage Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut ,
Glenn R. Wehtje  and
T. Vint Hicks
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
T. Vint Hicks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1985 to 1987 to evaluate herbicide systems for minimum-tillage and conventional-tillage peanut production. While acceptable weed control could be achieved in both tillage systems, minimum-tillage systems generally had to be more herbicide intensive. Preemergence or preplant-incorporated within-the-row applications of either ethalfluralin or pendimethalin plus postemergence applications of paraquat and sethoxydim provided Texas panicum control equivalent to preplant-incorporated applications of ethalfluralin or pendimethalin. Early-postemergence paraquat applications improved Florida beggarweed and pitted morningglory control in conventional-tillage systems at least 15% compared to the same systems without paraquat Control of bristly starbur and sicklepod in conventional-tillage systems did not increase with paraquat application. Broadleaf weed control did not differ between tillage systems, except pitted morningglory control was lower in the minimum-tillage system. Conventional-tillage peanuts produced yields 800 to 1900 kg/ha higher, depending on herbicide system, and also provided greater net returns than minimum-tillage peanuts. The greater yield and net returns in conventional- versus minimum-tillage systems were not attributed to weed control or disease problems.

Keywords

dinoseb, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitrophenolnaptalam, 2-[(1-naphthalenylamino)carbonyl]benzoic acidparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionpendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-di-methyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenaminesethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-oneTexas panicum, Panicum texanum L. Buckl. ♯ PANTEFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (SW.) DC ♯ DEDTOsicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia L. ♯ CASOBbristly starbur, Acanthospermum hispidum DC. ♯ ACHNIpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. ♯ IPOLApeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Minimum tillageconventional tillageeconomic returnsAcanthospermum hispidumCassia obtusifoliaDesmodium tortuosumIpomoea lacunosaPanicum texanumACHNICASOBDEDTOIPOLAPANTE
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , May 1990 , pp. 243 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Anonymous. 1985–1987. Estimated costs and returns for row crops – South Alabama. Alabama Coop. Ext Serv., Auburn Univ., AL 36849.Google Scholar
2. Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. Weed Control Economics. Academic Press, New York. 177 p.Google Scholar
3. Braddock, R. L., Teem, D. H., and Currey, W. L. 1980. Influence of seeding depth on control of Texas panicum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:222.Google Scholar
4. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) management. Weed Sci. 35:594–598.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1983. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206–249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
6. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Annual grass control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with fluazifop, sethoxydim, and selected dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:388–394.Google Scholar
7. Colvin, D. L., Brecke, B. J., and Whitty, E. B. 1988. Tillage variables for peanut production. Peanut Sci. 15:94–97.Google Scholar
8. Colvin, D. L. and Brecke, B. J. 1988. Peanut cultivar response to tillage systems. Peanut Sci. 15:21–24.Google Scholar
9. Colvin, D. L., Brecke, B. J., and Currey, W. L. 1986. Weed control and economic evaluation of full-season double cropped, conventional, and minimum tillage peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:55.Google Scholar
10. 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. 33:233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, marketing of peanuts in the United States. Pages 571–623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
12. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed Survey – Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408–420.Google Scholar
13. Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1987. Comparison of no-tillage, minimum, and full tillage cultural practices on peanuts. Peanut Sci. 14:101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1986. Postemergence grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 34:587–590.Google Scholar
15. Henning, R. J., Allison, A. H., and Tripp, L. D. 1982. Cultural practices. Pages 123–138 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
16. Turner, J. J., ed. 1983. Fundamentals of No-Till Farming. Chevron Chem. Co., San Francisco, CA. 148 pp.Google Scholar
17. Wehtje, G., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Hicks, T. V., and Cole, T. A. 1990. Postemergence weed management systems for peanuts. Weed Technol. 4:76–80.Google Scholar
19. 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. 37:385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:433–437.Google Scholar
21. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivations. Weed Sci. 35:711–715.Google Scholar
22. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Colvin, D. L., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of herbicide systems for minimum-tillage peanuts. Peanut Sci. 14:83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Wilcut, J. W., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G. R., and Whitwell, T. 1988. Efficacy and economics of pendimethalin herbicide combinations for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Appl. Agric. Res. 3(4):203–208.Google Scholar
24. Worsham, A. D. 1985. No-till tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 101–126 in Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL 61820.Google Scholar