Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T08:01:56.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Three Runner Market-Type Peanut Cultivars to Diclosulam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher L. Main ,
Joyce Tredaway Ducar  and
Gregory E. Macdonald
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
Joyce Tredaway Ducar*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
Gregory E. Macdonald
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tredaway@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate the response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to diclosulam applied preplant incorporated at 0,18, 27, or 54 g ai/ha in a weed-free environment. Peanut cultivars evaluated included ‘Georgia Green’, ‘C-99R’, and ‘MDR-98’. Peanut injury was not observed with diclosulam at any rate or with any cultivar. Diclosulam did not affect peanut canopy development, percentage extra-large kernels, sound mature kernels, sound splits, total sound mature kernels, other kernels, or yield for any cultivar.

Keywords

Diclosulampeanut, Arachis hypogaea L., ‘Georgia Green’, ‘C-99R’, ‘MDR-98’Herbicide injuryextra large kernelsgrade parametersother kernelssound mature kernelssound splitstotal kernelsDAP, days after plantingELK, extra large kernelsEPOST, early postemergenceOK, other kernelsPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, premergenceSMK, sound mature kernelsSS, sound splitsTSMK, total sound mature kernels
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 593 - 596
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., Askew, S. D., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 450–456.Google Scholar
Beasley, J. and Baldwin, J. 2001. Peanut Cultivars and Descriptions. College of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Georgia. Web page: http://www.griffin.peanet.edu/caes/peanuts/descriptions.html. Accessed: September 18, 2001.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1989. Response of peanut cultivars to selected herbicide treatments. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42: 28.Google 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. 571–623.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Campaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Gorbet, D. W. and Shokes, F. M. 2000. Florida MDR 98 Peanut. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Pub. S-401.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Dotray, P. A., and Sestak, D. C. 1999. Diclosulam for weed control in Texas peanut. Peanut Sci. 26: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III. 1987. The Hull Scrape Method to Assess Peanut Maturity. Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bull. 958.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Holbrook, C. C., Mullinix, B. G. Jr., and Cardina, J. 1992. Response of eight genetically diverse peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19: 111–115.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: 4–7.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
Prostko, E. P. and Baughman, T. A. 1999. Peanut Herbicide Injury Symptomology Guide. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Texas Agricultural Research Bull. SCS-1999-05. 11 p.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: 76–80.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Bennett, A. C., and Grant, D. L. 1999. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with flumetsulam, cloransulam, and diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13: 791–798.Google Scholar
Veneman, A. M. and Vogel, F. A. 2001. Acreage: Crop Production Report. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cr Pr 2-5 (6-01). Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bb/2001/crop0901.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 2001.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., 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: 67–71.Google Scholar
Whitty, E. B., Gorbet, D. W., and Dunavin, L. S. Jr. 2001. Peanut varieties for 2001. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida. SS-AGR-44. 10 p.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
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37: 285–391.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
Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. H. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research Education Society. pp. 458–487.Google Scholar