Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T04:00:16.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and Selected Weeds to Diclosulam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William A. Bailey ,
John W. Wilcut ,
David L. Jordan ,
Charles W. Swann  and
Vernon B. Langston
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina Slate University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina Slate University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina Slate University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Charles W. Swann
Affiliation:
Tidewater Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, VA 23437
Vernon B. Langston
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, The Woodlands, TX, 77382
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at five locations in North Carolina and Virginia during 1996 and 1997 to evaluate weed control, peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response, and peanut yield following diclosulam applied preplant incorporated (PPI) and in systems with commercial herbicide standards. All plots received a PPI treatment of ethalfluralin at 840 g ai/ha. Ethalfluralin plus diclosulam controlled entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula), ivyleaf morningglory (I. hederacea), pitted morningglory (I. lacunosa), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), eclipta (Eclipta prostrata), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa) as well as and frequently better than ethalfluralin PPI followed by (fb) acifluorfen plus bentazon postemergence (POST), paraquat plus bentazon early postemergence (EPOST) fb imazapic POST, or imazapic POST. Systems with ethalfluralin plus diclosulam PPI at 26 g ai/ha fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST controlled a broader spectrum of weeds and yielded greater than systems of ethalfluralin PPI fb imazapic POST or ethalfluralin PPI fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST. Peanut exhibited excellent tolerance to diclosulam PPI at 17, 26, or 35 g/ha.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidparaquat, l,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ioncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. ♯ ECLALprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. ♯ SIDSPivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea L. Jacq. ♯ IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. ♯ IPOLAHerbicide injuryweed controlyield2, 4-DBCHEALECLALIPOHEIPOHGIPOLASIDSPEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 771 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Altom, J. V. and Murray, D. S. 1996. Factors affecting eclipta (Eclipta prostrata) seed germination. Weed Technol. 10:727–731.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.Google 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. 51:61–62.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, In An Analysis of the Use and Benefits of Pesticides in U.S.-Grown Peanuts: III Virginia–Carolina Production Region. Tifton, GA: National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory. pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Hook, J. E. 1989. Factors influencing germination and emergence of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Weed Technol. 3:402–407.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Swann, C. W. 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci. 15:57–60.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:299–313.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and Johnson, P. D. 1998. Influence of adjuvants on efficacy of 2,4-DB, Cadre, and Strongarm. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:60.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Lemon, R. G., and Whitney, R. A. 1998. Weed control in peanuts with diclosulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:59.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. R. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. 1988. Relative tolerance of peanuts to alachlor and metolachlor. Peanut Sci. 15:53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1992. Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) and associated weeds. Weed Sci. 40:90–95.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Norton, D. N. 1991a. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18:26–30.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Norton, D. N. 1991b. Weed control, yield, and net returns using imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:243–248.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. 6:177–205.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut. Weed Sci. 44:104–110.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Langston, V. B., Braxton, L. B., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Evaluation of Strongarm (DE 564) for weed control in southeastern peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:5.Google Scholar