Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:42:47.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed and Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Response to Diclosulam Applied POST

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sarah H. Lancaster ,
Joshua B. Beam ,
James E. Lanier ,
David L. Jordan  and
P. Dewayne Johnson
Sarah H. Lancaster
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Joshua B. Beam
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
James E. Lanier
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
P. Dewayne Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: david_jordan@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diclosulam is generally applied either PPI or PRE to peanut to control certain broadleaf weeds and suppress sedges. Research was conducted to determine efficacy and peanut response to POST applications of diclosulam at 9, 13, 18, and 27 g ai/ha. Efficacy of diclosulam was affected by application rate and environment. Common ragweed control ranged from 60 to 100%, entireleaf morningglory control from 56 to 100%, marestail control from 78 to 85%, and nodding spurge from 50 to 97%. Smooth pigweed and common lambsquarters were both controlled less than 35%. Diclosulam controlled yellow nutsedge and eclipta less than 70 and 80%, respectively. In separate experiments, diclosulam and imazapic controlled dogfennel more effectively than acifluorfen, bentazon, imazethapyr, lactofen, paraquat, or 2,4-DB. Visual estimates of peanut injury were 15% or less for all rates during both years. Peanut yield ranged from 3,340 to 3,730 kg/ha in 2002 and 5,230 to 5,820 kg/ha in 2003. Foliar injury and peanut pod yield were influenced by diclosulam rate, although no clear relation was evident. Cultivar and diclosulam rate did not interact with respect to visual injury or pod yield.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazondiclosulamimazapicimazethapyrlactofenparaquat2,4-DBcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELdogfennel, Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam.) Small EUPCPeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. ECLALentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederaceae var integriscula Gray IPOHGmarestail, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAnodding spurge, Chamaesyce nutans (Lag.) Small EPHNUsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. #CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC-V 11’ ‘Perry’Broadleaf weed controlcrop toleranceimazapicweed management
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 618 - 622
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, 2474 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 2001. Strongarm product label. Indianapolis, IN 46268 Dow AgroSciences.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Diclosulam systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Technol. 16:807–814.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999a. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:771–776.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999b. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yields in eight Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402–405.Google Scholar
Edmund, R. M. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Factors associated with postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025: spray volume, growth stage, and soil-applied vernolate. Weed Sci. 35:216–223.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. and McDaniel, S. 1986. Identification and distribution of the weedy spurges in the delta of Mississippi. Weed Sci. 34:911–915.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Wehtje, G. R. 2005. Residual herbicide weed control systems in peanut. Weed Technol. 19:560–567.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1997. Influence of herbicides and timing of application on broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:708–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Eberlein, C. V., and Tonks, D. J. 2004. Broadleaf weed control and potato crop safety with postemergence rimsulfuron, metribuzin, and adjuvant combinations. Weed Technol. 18:750–756.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2006. Weed management in peanuts. in. 2006 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Series AG-331. 35–60.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application variables on efficacy of postemergence applications of DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:619–624.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and Johnson, P. D. 2006. Reduced tillage research with peanut in North Carolina (1997–2005). Southern Tillage Systems Conf. in Schartz, R.C., Baumhardt, R.L., Bell, J.M., eds. Proceedings of the Southern Conservation Tillage Systems Conference, 28. June 26–28, 2006. Amarillo, TX USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory Report No. 06-1. 134–140. Web page: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aux/nsdl/sctcsa/.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Robinson, B. L., and Johnson, P. D. 2007. How to lose a really good weed management research field in a hurry. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. In press.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., Colvin, D. L., and Shilling, D. G. 1994. Chemical and mechanical control of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Weed Technol. 8:483–487.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with chlorimuron plus acifluorfen or thifensulfuron mixtures. Weed Technol. 7:317–321.Google Scholar
Murphree, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Porter, B. L., Baughman, T. A., Grichar, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2002. Varietal tolerance to diclosulam and flumioxaxin in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:33.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 2002. Weed management with diclosulam in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:724–730.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. 2004. Strongarm applied postemergence in Georgia peanut. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 36:30.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. K., and Kvien, C. K. 1995. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars to the herbicide AC, 263, 222. Peanut Sci. 22:76–80.Google Scholar
Robinson, B. L. 2005. Evaluation of Weed Scouting Methods and the Effects of Glyphosate Drift in North Carolina Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Production. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 88. M.S. Thesis.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Wright, T. R. 2002. Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: what have we learned? Weed Sci. 50:700–712.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.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) . in Pattee, H.E., Stalker, H.T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK American Peanut Research and Education Society. 207–224.Google Scholar