Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:29:04.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazethapyr and Paraquat Systems for Weed Management in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut ,
John S. Richburg III ,
E. Ford Eastin ,
Gerald R. Wiley ,
F. Robert Walls Jr.  and
S. Newell
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Box 748, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA31794
John S. Richburg III
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Box 748, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA31794
E. Ford Eastin
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Box 748, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA31794
Gerald R. Wiley
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Corp., Tifton, GA 31794
F. Robert Walls Jr.
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Corp., Goldsboro, NC 27530
S. Newell
Affiliation:
Zeneca, Statesboro, GA 30458
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies conducted at six locations in Georgia and one location in Virginia evaluated imazethapyr and imazethapyr mixtures for weed control, crop tolerance, and peanut yield. Imazethapyr applied early postemergence controlled bristly starbur, coffee senna, common cocklebur, Ipomoea species, jimsonweed, prickly sida, and smallflower morningglory at least 91% and controlled yellow and purple nutsedge 88 and 98%, respectively. Paraquat plus bentazon applied early postemergence did not control the aforementioned weeds as well as imazethapyr or imazethapyr mixtures. Paraquat applied with imazethapyr reduced bristly starbur control 15% compared to imazethapyr alone but did not influence control of the other species. Imazethapyr control of bristly starbur was not improved by the addition of bentazon. Sicklepod control was less than 24% with imazethapyr and was at least 58% with imazethapyr plus paraquat Imazethapyr plus paraquat controlled sicklepod better than paraquat plus bentazon at three of the four locations evaluated. Imazethapyr did not control Florida beggarweed, while imazethapyr plus paraquat controlled at least 53%. Peanut injury was minimal 30 d after application for all treatments.

Keywords

paraquat, 1,1′dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion2,4-DB, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidbristly starbur, Acanthospermum hispidum DC. # ACNHIFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. # DEDTOjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPpurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. # CYPROsicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia L. # CASOByellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESACNHICASOBCASOCCYPESCYPROBATSTDEDTOIAQTAIPOHEIPOHGIPOLAPHBPUSIDSPXANSTcontrolpostemergence
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 601 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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

1. Brecke, B. J. and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Weed management in peanuts. Pages 239–251 in Pimentel, D., ed., CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. Vol. 3. 2nd ed., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 32:584–591.Google Scholar
3. Brown, S. M. 1992. Imazethapyr (Pursuit) in peanuts: Observations in Georgia from the first year. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:104.Google Scholar
4. Cole, T. A., Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hicks, T. V. 1989. Behavior of imazethapyr in soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:639–644.Google Scholar
5. Dowler, C. D. 1993. Weed survey-southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:430–464.Google Scholar
6. Henning, R. J., Allison, A. H., and Tripp, L. D. 1982. Cultural practices. Pages 123–138 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc. Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar
7. Grichar, W. J. 1992. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 6:108–112.Google Scholar
8. Grichar, W. J., Nester, P. R., and Colburn, A. E. 1992. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6:396–400.Google Scholar
9. Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.Google Scholar
10. Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. Pages 326–410 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar
11. Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of foliar and/or soil applied imazethapyr to purple and yellow (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 7:900–905.Google Scholar
12. Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Grichar, W. J., Culbreath, A. C., Kvien, C. K., Branch, W. D., and Wiley, G. 1994. Peanut variety response to AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:226.Google Scholar
13. Schuh, J. F. and Harvey, R. G. 1990. Influence of moisture on soil and foliar applied imazethapyr. WSSA Abst. 30:38.Google Scholar
14. Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafzinger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
15. Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1992. Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 40:90–95.Google Scholar
16. Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1993. Absorption, translocation, and phytotoxicity of chlorimuron and 2,4-DB mixtures in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weed species. Weed Sci. 40:347–352.Google Scholar
17. 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
18. Wilcut, I W. 1991. Imazethapyr and AC 263,222 systems for Georgia peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:138.Google Scholar
19. Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:416–420.Google Scholar
20. Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Tropic croton (Croton glandulosus) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 5:795–798.Google Scholar
21. Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1992. Pursuit and Cadre mixtures for weed control in Georgia peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 24:46.Google Scholar
22. Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Weed control, yield, and net returns using imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 39:238–242.Google Scholar
23. Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18:26–30.Google Scholar
24. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:433–437.Google Scholar
25. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivations. Weed Sci. 35:711–715.Google Scholar
26. 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
27. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems without dinoseb for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:385–391.Google Scholar
28. Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G., Jones, S. R., and Iverson, M. J. 1994. Imidazolinone herbicide systems for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 21:23–28.Google Scholar
29. Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. H. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. Pages 458–487 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
30. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed Crop Competition—A Review. International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 196 p.Google Scholar
31. Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–156 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar