Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T01:07:53.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Evaluation of Diclosulam and Flumioxazin Systems in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George H. Scott ,
Shawn D. Askew  and
John W. Wilcut
George H. Scott
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at two locations in North Carolina in 1998 and in 1999 to evaluate weed control and peanut response following diclosulam at 27 g ai/ha preemergence (PRE) or flumioxazin at 87 g ai/ha preemergence (PRE) alone and in systems with postemergence (POST) commercial standards. All plots received a preplant incorporated (PPI) treatment of metolachlor at 1,400 g ai/ha. Metolachlor PPI plus diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE controlled common lambsquarters, common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, and yellow nutsedge as well as or better than metolachlor PPI followed by (fb) acifluorfen plus bentazon POST or paraquat plus bentazon early postemergence fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST. Metolachlor PPI plus diclosulam PRE or flumioxazin PRE controlled ivyleaf morningglory as well as metolachlor PPI fb acifluorfen plus bentazon POST. Metolachlor PPI plus flumioxazin PRE controlled common lambsquarters better than metolachlor PPI plus diclosulam PRE while diclosulam PRE controlled common ragweed better. There was no difference in common lambsquarters control between flumioxazin and diclosulam PRE when POST herbicides were used. There was only one difference in peanut yield and net returns between metolachlor PPI fb either diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE when POST herbicides were used.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazondiclosulamflumioxazinmetolachlorparaquatcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop. # DIGSAyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L., ‘NC 7’, ‘NC 10C’Economic analysisacifluorfenbentazonparaquatEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 360 - 364
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

Anderson, R. J., Norris, A. E., and Hess, F. D. 1994. Synthetic organic chemicals that act through the porphyrin pathway. In Duke, S. O. and Rebeizz, C. A., eds. Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society ACS Symposium Series 559. 317 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Summary of Annual Ownership Costs, Performance Rates, and Hourly Operation Costs by Machines, 1998 Field Crop Budgets. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 3 p.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. 1999a. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 13: 594–598.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999b. Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant-incorporated herbicides and cloransulam-methyl. Weed Technol. 13: 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13: 450–456.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 1999. 1999 outlook and situation. In 1999 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 86 p.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Culpepper, A. S. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) management in soybean (Glycine max) with flumetsulam. Weed Technol. 11: 224–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2000. Peanut production practices. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 2000 Peanut Information. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication Ag. 331. pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 7: 153–155.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, 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
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response to peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5: 416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1997. Summary of flumioxazin performance in southeastern peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:7.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Richburg, J. S. III. 1994. V-53482 systems with bentazon + paraquat or AC 263,222 for Georgia peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:32.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: 558–562.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
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagono, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482—anew N-phenyl pthalimide herbicide. In Brighton Crop Protection Conference, Weeds—1991. Farnham, UK: British Crop Protection Council. 1: 69–75.Google Scholar