Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:22:38.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of peanut to low rates of MSMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. Donald Wauchope
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793

Abstract

The response of peanut to low rates of MSMA under weed-free conditions was studied in 1992 and 1994 near Tifton, GA. MSMA was applied 40, 70, 100, or 130 days after emergence (DAE). At each application timing, MSMA was applied at 0, 90, 168, and 336 g ai ha−1. MSMA application timing did not affect peanut yield. Increasing rates of MSMA caused minor reduction in peanut yield. Analysis using atomic absorption spectroscopy showed elemental arsenic accumulation of ≤ 0.7 ppm in peanut kernels from MSMA applied 70 and 100 DAE. This approximates the time interval of peanut pod and kernel formation. MSMA applied 40 and 130 DAE resulted in little detectable arsenic in kernels. Low rates of MSMA, originating as drift from aerial applications to cotton or illegal and unsound applications to peanut for Florida beggarweed control, are not likely to reduce peanut yields. The greatest hazard from peanut exposure to MSMA is accumulation of arsenic in kernels, which would adversely affect peanut marketability and consumer demand.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Anonymous. 1994. MSMA. in Ahrens, W. H., ed. Herbicide Handbook. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America, pp. 209211.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Aliphatics. Mode of Action of Herbicides. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 7784.Google Scholar
Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 9: 3540.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1977. Activity and degradation of arsenates in soil. Spec. Publ. Agric. Res. Organ, Volcani Cent., Bel Dagan, Israel 82: 2026.Google Scholar
Jelinek, C. F. and Corneliussen, P. E. 1977. Levels of arsenic in the United States food supply. Environ. Health Perspect. 19: 8387.Google Scholar
Ketring, D. L., Brown, R. H., Sullivan, G. A., and Johnson, B. B. 1983. Growth physiology. in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Research and Education Society, pp. 411–57.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 29: 303308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. H., Hiltbold, A. E., and Granade, G. 1982. Hazards of MSMA and DSMA for peanut weed control. Highlights of Agriculture. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. 29: 3.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D. 1983. Uptake, translocation, and phytotoxicity of arsenic in plants. in Lederer, W. H. and Fensterheim, R. J., eds. Arsenic: Industrial, Biomedical, Environmental Perspectives. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 348375.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1977. Arsenic residues in soybean seed from simulated MSMA spray drift. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17: 165167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wauchope, R. D., Richard, E. P., and Hurst, H. R. 1982. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa). II. Arsenic residues in foliage and grain and relationships between arsenic residues, rice toxicity symptoms, and yields. Weed Sci. 30: 405410.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D. and Street, J. E. 1987. Fate of a water soluble herbicide spray on foliage. Part II. Absorption and dissipation of foliar MSMA deposits: mathematical modelling. Pestic. Sci. 19: 253263.Google Scholar