Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:39:45.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peanut Response to Pyraflufen-ethyl Applied Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2017

Misha R. Manuchehri ,
Peter A. Dotray ,
W. James Grichar  and
Todd A. Baughman
Misha R. Manuchehri*
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Student and Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
Peter A. Dotray
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Student and Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
W. James Grichar
Affiliation:
Senior Research Scientist, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Corpus Christi, TX 78406
Todd A. Baughman
Affiliation:
Professor, Oklahoma State University, Ardmore, OK 73401
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: misha.manuchehri@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in various peanut production regions of Texas and Oklahoma during the 2013 and 2014 growing seasons to determine peanut response to single and sequential postemergence applications of pyraflufen-ethyl at the labelled use rate (3.6 g ai ha−1). Pyraflufen-ethyl injured peanut in all single and two-application treatments. Injury consisted of white spots on leaves up to 14 d after treatment and became small necrotic spots on older leaf tissue. No injury was apparent on any new growth. Injury did not translate into yield loss in three of five locations; however, yield reductions (approximately 26%) were observed in two of five locations. Peanut grade was not affected by pyraflufen-ethyl applications.

Keywords

Pyraflufenpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Groundnutherbicide injury
Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 464 - 469
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Associate Editor for this paper: Barry Brecke, University of Florida.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2014a) Butyrac® 200 herbicide product label. Albaugh Publication No. AD081810. Ankeny, IA: Albaugh, Inc. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014b) ET® herbicide/defoliant product label. Nichino America Publication No. 250539. Wilmington, DE: Nichino. 41 pGoogle Scholar
Baughman, TA, Brecke, BJ, Dotray, PA, Grey, TL, Grichar, WJ, Karnei, JR, Murphree, TA, Porter, BL, Besler, BA, Brewer, KB (2002) Peanut tolerance to applications of acifluorfen. Proc Amer Peanut Res Educ Soc 34:88 Google Scholar
Boote, KJ (1952) Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci 9:35–40 Google Scholar
Buchanan, GA, Murray, DS, Hauser, EW (1982) Weeds and their control in peanuts (Pages 206–249 in Pattee HE & Young CT, eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society Google Scholar
Dotray, PA, Baughman, TA, Grichar, WJ (2010) Peanut response to carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl applied postemergence. Peanut Sci 37:52–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotray, PA, Grichar, WJ, Baughman, TA, Prostko, EP, Grey, TL, Gilbert, LV (2012) Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) response to lactofen at various postemergence timings. Peanut Sci 39:9–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, RR, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper ND ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society of America. Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Wehtje, GR, Walker, RH, Paudel, KP (1995) Comparison of imazethapyr and paraquat-based weed control systems in peanut. Weed Technol 9:813–818 Google Scholar
Grichar, WJ, Dotray, PA, Baughman, TA (2010) Peanut variety response postemergence applications of carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl. Crop Prot 29:1034–1038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketchersid, ML, Boswell, TE, Merkle, MG (1978) Effects of 2,4-DB on yield and pod development in peanuts. Peanut Sci 5:35–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matocha, MA, Grichar, WJ, Senseman, SA, Gerngross, CA, Brecke, BJ, Vencill, WK (2003) The persistence of imazapic in peanut (Archis hypogaea) crop rotations. Weed Technol 17:325–329 Google Scholar
Murata, S, Yamashita, A, Kimura, Y, Motoba, K, Mabuchi, T, Miura, Y (2002) Mechanisms of selective action of a protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase-inhibiting herbicide pyraflufen-ethyl between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and cleavers (Galium aparine). J Pestic Sci 27:47–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Scroggs, DM, Miller, DK, Vidrine, PR, Downer, RG (2006) Evaluation of weed control and crop tolerance with co-application of glyphosate and pyraflufen-ethyl in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 20:1035–1039 Google Scholar
Shaner, DL ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 383 pGoogle Scholar
Thompson, WM, Nissen, SJ (2002) Influence of shade and irrigation on the response of corn (Zea mays), soybeans (Glycine max), and wheat (Triticum aestivum) to carfentrazone-ethyl. Weed Technol 16:314–318 Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2015). Farmers’ Stock Peanuts Inspection Instructions. Washington, DC: Agric Marketing Serv. p 41 Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, York, AC, Grichar, WJ, Wehtje, GR (1995) The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Archis hypogaea). Pages 207–244 in Pattee HE & Stalker HT, eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society Google Scholar
York, AC, Wilcut, JW (1995) Potential for cadre and pursuit applied to peanuts to carryover to cotton in North Carolina and Georgia. Proc Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:602 Google Scholar