Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:41:13.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Peanuts to Combinations of Herbicides with Other Pesticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Roland L. Cargill  and
P. W. Santelmann
Roland L. Cargill
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
P. W. Santelmann
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There were no apparent herbicide-insecticide or herbicide-fungicide interactions when two pesticides were used on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the greenhouse. In field studies, O,O-diethyl s-(2-(ethylthio)-ethyl)-phosphorodithioate (disulfoton), O,O-diethyl s-((ethylthio)-methyl)-phosphorodithioate (phorate), 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (dibromochloropropane), and pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) had little influence on phytotoxicity of the herbicides 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (chloramben) and α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) to peanuts. There was no phytotoxic effect or yield reduction as a result of application of chloramben or trifluralin combined with the use of fungicide-treated seed in the field. However, in the greenhouse, top growth of the fungicide-treated checks was greater than that of the herbicide-fungicide seed treatments. Dibromochloropropane nematocide alone was injurious to peanut seedlings grown in the greenhouse, but the application of a herbicide did not increase the injury.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 24 - 27
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Arle, H. F. 1968. Trifluralin-systemic insecticide interactions on seedling cotton. Weed Sci. 16:430–432.Google Scholar
2. Boling, J. C. and Hacskaylo, J. 1966. Effect of the systemic insecticide UC21149 and four preemergence herbicides on cotton seedlings. J. Econ. Ent. 59:1026–1027.Google Scholar
3. Chambers, A. Y., Overton, J. R., and Andrews, H. 1968. Interactions of preemergence herbicides, systemic insecticides, and soil fungicides in cotton. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 21:54–66.Google Scholar
4. Helmer, J. D., Harris, F. A., Hobbs, C. D., Keaton, J. A., Pafford, J. L., Watson, J. H., and Polzin, W. J. 1969. The effects of seed quality, systemic insecticides and trifluralin on cotton and Spanish peanuts. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:132–144.Google Scholar
5. Ivy, H. W. and Pfrimmer, T. R. 1969. Effect of combinations of preemergence herbicides and systemic insecticides on cotton stands and yield. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:94.Google Scholar
6. Johnson, B. J. 1969. Response of soybeans to combinations of herbicides and systemic insecticides. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:95.Google Scholar
7. Pinckard, J. A. and Standifer, L. C. 1966. An apparent interaction between cotton herbicidal injury and seedling blight. Plant Dis. Rep. 50:172–174.Google Scholar