Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:03:04.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Imazethapyr in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) as Affected by Time of Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Alan C. York ,
John W. Wilcut ,
Charles W. Swann ,
David L. Jordan  and
F. Robert Walls Jr.
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Univ. Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
Charles W. Swann
Affiliation:
Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ., Suffolk, VA 23437
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Northeast Res. Stn., Louisiana State Univ., St Joseph, LA 71366
F. Robert Walls Jr.
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Corp., Goldsboro, NC 27530
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments conducted in North Carolina and Virginia compared weed control, peanut yield, and net returns with systems using imazethapyr applied at various times and the regional standard treatment of paraquat applied at the ground-cracking stage of peanut (GC) followed by acifluorfen plus bentazon applied POST. Imazethapyr was applied PPI, PRE, GC, or POST at 70 g ae ha−1. Imazethapyr also was applied sequentially PPI plus GC, PPI plus POST, and PRE plus POST at 35 + 35 and 70 + 70 g ha−1. Late-season control of common ragweed and a mixture of entireleaf, ivyleaf, and pitted morningglories by the standard treatment ranged from 85 to 100%. Spurred anoda was controlled 80%, and common lambsquarters and prickly sida were controlled completely. Control of common lambsquarters, prickly sida, and morningglory by imazethapyr applied one or more times was similar to control by the standard. Control by imazethapyr exceeded that by the standard only for spurred anoda. The most effective time for applying imazethapyr varied by species and locations. Imazethapyr was equally effective on common lambsquarters and spurred anoda when applied PPI, PRE, or GC. Prickly sida and morningglory were controlled best when imazethapyr was applied PPI or PRE and GC, respectively. Common ragweed was controlled poorly with single applications of imazethapyr. Applying imazethapyr sequentially improved consistency of control across the range of species. In most cases, imazethapyr applied sequentially at 35 + 35 g ha−1 controlled all weeds as well as or better than when applied once at 70 g ha−1. Overall, imazethapyr at the registered rate of 70 g ha−1 was most effective when applied PPI at 35 g ha−1 followed by 35 g ha−1 at GC. Except for common ragweed, weed control with this treatment was similar to that by the standard. Peanut yield and net returns with this treatment were similar to those with the standard at three of four locations.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ioncommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisüfolia L. # AMBELivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPspurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. # ANVCRNet returnssequential applicationsacifluorfenbentazonparaquatAmbrosia artemisüfoliaAnoda cristataChenopodium albumIpomoea hederaceaIpomoea hederacea var. integriusculaIpomoea lacunosaSida spinosaAMBELANVCRCHEALIPOHEIPOHGIPOLASIDSP
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 107 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Arnold, R. N., Murray, M. W., Gregory, E. J., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 7:361–364.Google Scholar
2. Blackshaw, R. E and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.Google Scholar
3. Brecke, B. J. and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Weed management in peanuts. Pp. 239–251 in Pimentel, D., ed. CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture, vol. 3, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
4. Brecke, B. J. and Royal, S. S. 1990. Cocklebur interference in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:329.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pp. 209–249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar
6. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3:596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:392–407.Google Scholar
8. Fiebig, W. W., Shilling, D. G., and Knauft, D. A. 1991. Peanut genotype response to interference from common cocklebur. Crop Sci. 31:1289–1292.Google Scholar
9. Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., and Wilcut, J. W. 1993. Weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat as supplemented with bentazon or imazethapyr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:70.Google Scholar
10. Henning, R. J., Allison, A. H., and Tripp, L. D. 1982. Cultural practices. Pp. 123–138 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar
11. 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
12. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Effect of tillage systems on the efficacy and phytotoxicity of imazaquin and imazethapyr in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:233–238.Google Scholar
13. Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. Pp. 326–410 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar
14. Richburg, J. S. III, and Wilcut, J. W. 1992. Imazethapyr systems for weed management in Georgia peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:106.Google Scholar
15. Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., Shokes, F. M., and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Chlorothalonil interception and foliar disease incidence as affected by three broadleaf weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:355.Google Scholar
16. Sullivan, G. A. and Neuman, D. F. 1990. Peanuts. Pp. 76 in North Carolina Farm Enterprise Budget Guidelines. Misc. Publ., North Carolina Agric. Ext. Serv., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
17. Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.Google Scholar
18. Walker, R. H., Wells, L. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidium) interference in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:196–200.Google Scholar
19. Wehtje, G. R, McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.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 Swann, C. W. 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558–562.Google Scholar
22. 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
23. 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
24. Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:177–206.Google Scholar
25. York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Young, J. H., Person, N. K., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. H. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. Pp. 458–487 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar