Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:24:45.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economics of Weed Control in Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with Herbicides and Cultivations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut ,
Glenn R. Wehtje  and
Robert H. Walker
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-861101
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-861101
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-861101
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness and profitability of weed control with herbicides and cultivation were determined in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner′) infested with Texas panicum (Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTE), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L. # CASOB), and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLA). Highest peanut yield (4260 kg/ha) and net returns were achieved in 2 of 3 yr with benefin [N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine] applied preplant incorporated followed by alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl) acetamide] and dinoseb [2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol] plus naptalam {2-[(1-naphthalenylamino)carbonyl] benzoic acid} applied at ground cracking, with two timely cultivations. Systems utilizing herbicides alone did not provide highest net returns, peanut yield, or weed control.

Keywords

Net returnsPANTECASOBIPOLA
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , September 1987 , pp. 711 - 715
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut. Peanut Sci. 9:35–40.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206–249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
4. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, marketing of peanuts in the United States. Pages 571–623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
5. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed Survey-Southern States. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W. and Parham, S. A. 1969. Effects of annual weeds and cultivation on yield of peanuts. Weed Res. 9:192–197.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, E. W., Cecil, S. R., and Dowler, C. C. 1973. Systems of weed control for peanuts. Weed Sci. 21:176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabanana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. Pages 326–410 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar