Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T21:11:55.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diclosulam Does Not Influence Yields in Eight Virginia Market-Type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey
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
Janet F. Spears
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Thomas G. Isleib
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Vernon B. Langston
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, The Woodlands, TX 77382
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu.

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to evaluate response of eight peanut cultivars to diclosulam applied preplant incorporated at 36 g ai/ha in a weed-free environment. Peanut cultivars evaluated included ‘NC 12C’, ‘NC 7’, ‘VAC 92R’, ‘NC-V 11’, ‘NC 10C’, ‘AT VC 1’,‘NC 9’, and the experimental breeding line N90010E. Visible injury 3 wk after planting was less than 5% regardless of cultivar. No injury was observed at 21 d after planting. Diclosulam did not influence the incidence of early leaf spot, late leaf spot, southern stem rot, cylindrocladium black rot, or tomato spotted wilt virus. Diclosulam did not affect percentage of extra large kernels, sound mature kernels, other kernels, and yield.

Type
Research Article
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

Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Askew, S. D., and Hinton, J. D. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol. 13: 450456.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. A. and Gorski, S. F. 1989. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) endosperm mutants to chloroacetamide and thiocarbamate herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 475478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1989. Response of peanut cultivars to herbicide treatments. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:28.Google Scholar
Chiteka, Z. A., Gorbet, D. W., Shokes, F. M., Kurcharek, T. A., and Knauft, D. A. 1988. Components of resistance to late leaf spot in peanut. Peanut Sci. 15: 2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, and marketing of peanuts in the United States. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society. pp. 571623.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1997. Weed management in west Texas peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:6.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Sestak, D. C. 1997. Diclosulam for weed control in south Texas peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:6.Google Scholar
Hau, F. C., Campbell, C. L., and Beute, M. K. 1982. Inoculum distribution and sampling methods for Cylindrocladium crotalariae in a peanut field. Plant Dis. 66: 568571.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C., Holbrook, C. C., Mullinix, B. G. Jr., and Cardina, J. 1992. Response of eight genetically diverse peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19: 111115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and Spears, J. F. 1997. Peanut production practices. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 1997 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. Ag-331. pp. 719.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Batts, R. B., and York, A. C. 1998. Response of Virginia-type peanut to norflurazon. Peanut Sci. 25: 47.Google Scholar
McLean, H. S., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. C., Branch, W. D., and Kvien, C. K. 1994. Peanut variety response to norflurazon. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:33.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., 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: 7680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Barrentine, J. L., Braxton, L. B., Geselius, T. C., Grant, D. L., Langston, V. B., Redding, K. D., Sheppard, B. R., and Nolting, S. P. 1997. Performance of diclosulam on key broadleaf weeds in southern soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:161.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Backman, P. A., and Williams, J. C. 1975. Determination of yield losses to Sclerotium rolfsii in peanut fields. Plant Dis. 59: 855858.Google Scholar
Sheppard, B. R., Braxton, L. B., Barrentine, J. L., Geselius, T. C., Grant, D. L., Langston, V. B., Redding, K. D., Richburg, J. S., and Roby, D. B. 1997. Diclosulam, a new herbicide for broadleaf weed control in soybeans and peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:161.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., McGuire, J. A., and Hicks, T. V. 1991. Foliar penetration and phytotoxicity of paraquat as influenced by peanut cultivar. Peanut Sci. 18: 6771.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. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. pp. 207244.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