Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Critical Period of Weed Interference in Peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Lewiston–Woodville and Rocky Mount, NC to evaluate the effects of mixed weed species on peanut yield. A combination of broadleaf and grass weeds were allowed to interfere with peanut for various intervals to determine both the critical timing of weed removal and the critical weed-free period. These periods were then combined to determine the critical period of weed control in peanut. The effects of various weedy intervals on peanut yield were also investigated. The predicted critical period of weed control, in the presence of a mixed population of weeds, was found to be from 3 to 8 wk after planting (WAP). Peanut yield decreased as weed interference intervals increased, demonstrating the need for weed control throughout much of the growing season in the presence of mixed weed populations.

Type
Research
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

Agostinho, F. H., Gravena, R., Alves, P. L. C. A., Salgado, T. P., and Mattos, E. D. 2006. The effect of cultivar on critical periods of weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 33:2935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338344.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2006. Peanut insect and mite management. Pages 6177. in Jordan, D. L., Spears, J., Brandenburg, R. L., Brown, A. B., Shew, B., Roberson, G. T., and Bullen, G., editors. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Peanut Information.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Brecke, B. J., and Barbour, J. C. 1992. Wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) interference with peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 40:3742.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149154.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Schroeder, M., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol. 21:367371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J. and Brecke, B. J. 1989. Growth and development of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) selections. Weed Sci. 37:207210.Google Scholar
Carson, A. G. 1976. Weed competition and control in groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Ghana J. Agric. Sci. 9:169173.Google Scholar
Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr, and Coble, H. D. 1982. Interference of broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 30:4549.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 49:768772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2:1320.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York J. Wiley. 736.Google Scholar
Everman, W. J., Burke, I. C., Clewis, S. B., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2008. Critical period of grass versus broadleaf weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 22:6367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1991. Control of Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and southern crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides. Peanut Sci. 19:69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1986. Postemergence grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 34:587590.Google Scholar
Hackett, N. M., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1987a. Interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) on Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 14:3941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackett, N. M., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1987b. Interference of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) with peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:780784.Google Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:737744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441447.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Etheridge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance on weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368372.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). Weed Sci. 30:602604.Google Scholar
Hill, L. V. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual weeds in Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:12.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2006. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) interference in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and implications for treatment decisions. Peanut Sci. 32:6872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2006a. Peanut production practices. Pages 1534. in Jordan, D. L., Spears, J., Brandenburg, R. L., Brown, A. B., Shew, B., Roberson, G. T., and Bullen, G., editors. Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2006b. Weed management in peanut. Pages 3560. in Jordan, D. L., Spears, J., Brandenburg, R. L., Brown, A. B., Shew, B., Roberson, G. T., and Bullen, G., editors. Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2007. Chemical weed control in peanuts. Pages 352360. in Buhler, W. G., Burnette, J., DePerno, C., Burton, M. G., Crozier, C. R., Gosper, J. M., Monks, D. W., Ritchie, D. F., Roberson, G. T., Sidebottom, J. R., Toth, S., Kornegay, J., and Melton, T., editors. 2007 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC College of Agricultural and Life Sciences.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 1993. Application timing of lactofen for broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 20:129131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortenson, D. A., Westra, P., Fausey, W. J. C., Kells, J. J., Langton, S. J., Harvey, R. G., Bussler, B. H., Banken, K., Clay, S., and Forcella, F. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:195200.Google Scholar
Martinez, C. I. and Nieto, J. 1968. The critical periods of competition between weeds and spring cotton in the Yaqui Valley of Obregon, Sonora, Mexico. Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer. Abst. 8:151.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci. 52:802807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, A. J., Burke, I. C., Askew, W. B., Schroeder, M., Everman, W. J., and Wilcut, J. W. 2006. Interference and seed-rain dynamics of jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 33:142146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., and Colvin, D. L. 1997a. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 45:3843.Google Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., Shokes, F. M., and Colvin, D. L. 1997b. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chlorothalonil deposition, foliar disease incidence, and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Technol. 11:5158.Google Scholar
Shew, B. 2006. Peanut disease management. Pages 79104. in Jordan, D. L., Spears, J., Brandenburg, R. L., Brown, A. B., Shew, B., Roberson, G. T., and Bullen, G., editors. Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Tropic croton interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 18:119123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, C. R., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41:194200.Google Scholar
Van Heemst, H. D. J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agricultural Systems 18:8193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. H., Wells, L. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidium) interference in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:196200.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:291306.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. and Swann, C. W. 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558562.Google 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 207224. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., editors. 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
Yadav, S. K., Singh, S. P., and Bhan, V. M. 1984. Crop-weed competition in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). J. Ag. Sci. 103:373376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:4347.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., Jordan, D. L., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1995. Efficacy of imazethapyr in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) as affected by time of application. Weed Sci. 43:107116.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Ames, IA Blackwell Publishing Professional. 220.CrossRefGoogle 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: 19 *
View data table for this chart

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

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-r88h9 Total loading time: 0.305 Render date: 2021-01-20T22:55:16.896Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "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.

Critical Period of Weed Interference in 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.

Critical Period of Weed Interference in 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.

Critical Period of Weed Interference in Peanut
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *