Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:00:58.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incorporated Vernolate and Other Weed Control Treatments for Peanut Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. P. Upchurch ,
F. L. Selman  and
H. L. Webster
R. P. Upchurch
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University
F. L. Selman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University
H. L. Webster
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fifteen herbicidal treatments were evaluated for weed control effectiveness in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) culture at three locations in the peanut production area of eastern North Carolina during 1964 and 1965. Delayed preemergence treatments of 4,6-dinitro-o-sec-butylphenol (DNBP) alone and in combination with O-(2,4-dichlorophenyl) O-methyl isopropylphosphoroamidothioate (DMPA) were superior to conventional herbicidal and non-herbicidal control methods as were single and multiple incorporated treatments of S-propyl dipropylthiocarbamate (vernolate). A single postplant vernolate treatment incorporated 1 in deep provided weed control superior to that obtained for single preplant vernolate treatments incorporated 1 in or 3 in deep. Increased weed control and increased peanut safety were obtained from 2.5 lb/A of vernolate by incorporating treatments at 0, 7, and 14 days after planting rather than by using a single application. This multiple treatment was the optimum one evaluated and provided 53 days of control and required 10 hr/A of hoeing time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 317 - 323
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

1. Appleby, A. P., Furtick, W. R., and Fang, S. C. 1965. Soil placement studies with EPTC and other carbamate herbicides on Avena sativa . Weed Res. 5:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ashton, Floyd M. and Dunster, Kenneth. 1961. The herbicidal effect of EPTC, CDEC, and CDAA on Echinochloa crusgalli with various depths of soil incorporation. Weeds 9:312–317.Google Scholar
3. Claque, Thomas E. 1965. Progress report on ro-wheel incorporation. Proc. SWC 18:207–211.Google Scholar
4. Duke, George B., Chappell, W. E. and Rud, O. E. 1964. Influence of production practices on weeds and yield of peanuts in Virginia. Proc. SWC 17:162–170.Google Scholar
5. Guse, L., Humphreys, W., Hooks, J., Gramlich, J., and Arnold, W. 1966. Benefin, Balantm a preemergence herbicide for peanuts. Proc. SWC 19:121–125.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, Ellis W. 1965. Preemergence activity of three thiocarbamate herbicides in relation to depth of placement in the soil. Weeds 13:255–257.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, Ellis W. 1967. The influence of DMPA on peanut yields. Weeds 15:84–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hauser, E. W., Butler, J. L., Shepherd, J. L., and Parham, S. A. 1966. Response of yellow nutsedge, Florida pusley, and peanuts to thiocarbamate herbicides as affected by method of placement in soil. Weed Res. 6:338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hauser, E. W. and Parham, S. A. 1964. Herbicide mixtures for weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.), 1961–63. Weed Res. 4:338–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hauser, Ellis W. and Parham, S. A. 1967. Progress Report: Control of yellow nutsedge in peanuts with a soil-injected herbicide. Proc. SWC 20:33. (Abstr.) Google Scholar
11. Holstun, J. T. Jr., Wooten, O. B., Parker, R. E., and Schweizer, E. E. 1963. Triband weed control—A new concept for weed control in cotton. U.S. Dep. Agr. ARS 34–56. 14 p.Google Scholar
12. Kenpen, H. M., Miller, J. H., and Carter, L. M. 1963. Preemergence herbicides incorporated in moist soils for control of annual grass in irrigated cotton. Weeds 11:300–307.Google Scholar
13. Knake, E. L., Slife, F. W., and Seif, R. D. 1965. The effect of rotary hoeing on performance of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 13:72–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Menges, Robert M. and Hubbard, J. L. 1965. Soil-surface and soil-incorporated applications of herbicides in furrow-irrigated spinach. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 87:363–370.Google Scholar
15. Menges, Robert M. and Hubbard, J. L. 1966. Herbicidal performances of CDEC and EPTC incorporated to various depths in furrow-irrigated soils. Weeds 14:215–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Peters, Elroy J., Klingman, Dayton L., and Larson, Russell E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Santelmann, P. W., Matlock, R. S., and Six, Lee. 1967. Phytotoxicity of herbicides to Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by planting depth and simulated rainfall. Crop Sci. 7:365–367.Google Scholar
18. Upchurch, R. P. and Selman, F. L. 1963. Peanut weed control research in North Carolina. Proc. SWC 16:88. (Abstr.) Google Scholar
19. Upchurch, R. P. and Selman, F. L. 1968. Compatibility of chemical and mechanical weed control methods. Weed Sci. 16: (In press).Google Scholar
20. Waldrep, T. W. and Freeman, J. F. 1964. EPTC injury to corn as affected by depth of incorporation in the soil. Weeds 12:315–317.Google Scholar
21. Worsham, A. D. and Perry, Astor. 1967. Test-demonstrations on weed control in peanuts in North Carolina in 1966. Proc. SWC 20:26–31.Google Scholar