Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:57:20.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Peanut with Herbicide Combinations Containing Imazapic and Other Pesticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David L. Jordan ,
Sarah H. Lancaster ,
James E. Lanier ,
Bridget R. Lassiter  and
P. Dewayne Johnson
David L. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Sarah H. Lancaster
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
James E. Lanier
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Bridget R. Lassiter
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
P. Dewayne Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: david_jordan@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted in North Carolina to compare weed control by various rates of imazapic POST alone or following diclosulam PRE. In a second experiment, weed control by imazapic applied POST alone or with acifluoren, diclosulam, or 2,4-DB was compared. In a final experiment, yellow nutsedge control by imazapic alone and with the fungicides azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil, pyraclostrobin, and tebuconazole was compared. Large crabgrass was controlled more effectively by imazapic POST than diclosulam PRE. Common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and eclipta were controlled more effectively by diclosulam PRE than imazapic POST. Nodding spurge was controlled similarly by both herbicides. Few differences in control were noted when comparing imazapic rates after diclosulam PRE. Applying either diclosulam PRE or imazapic POST alone or in combination increased peanut yield over nontreated peanut in five of six experiments. Few differences in pod yield were noted when comparing imazapic rates. Acifluorfen, diclosulam, and 2,4-DB did not affect entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, nodding spurge, pitted morningglory, and yellow nutsedge control by imazapic. Eclipta control by coapplication of imazapic and diclosulam exceeded control by imazapic alone. The fungicides azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil, pyraclostrobin, and tebuconazole did not affect yellow nutsedge control by imazapic.

Keywords

Acifluorfenazoxystrobin, methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl}-3-methoxyacrylatebentazonchlorothalonil, tetrachloroisophthalonitrile2,4-DBdiclosulamimazapicpyraclostrobin, methyl [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxycarbamatetebuconazole, α-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)ethyl]-α-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanolcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. ECLALentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integruscula Gray IPOHGlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAnodding spurge, Chamaesyce nutans (Lag.) Small EPHNUpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Pesticide compatibilityweed management
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 6 - 10
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

Anonymous 2007a. Cadre herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corp.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2007b. Strongarm herbicide label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence. Weed Technol 13:450–456.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental designs and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. in Camper, N. D., editor. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 486 p.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Wehtje, G. R. 2005. Residual weed control systems in peanut. Weed Technol 19:560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2007. Weed management in peanuts. Pages 47–74. in. 2007 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Series AG-331. 132 p.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Grichar, W. J., Tredaway-Ducar, J., Brecke, B. J., and York, A. C. 2003. Weed control with combinations of selected fungicides and herbicides applied postemergence to peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci 30:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Robinson, B. L., and Johnson, P. D. 2007. How to lose a really good weed management research field in a hurry. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 60:193.Google Scholar
Lancaster, S. H., Beam, J. B., Lanier, J. E., Jordan, D. L., and Johnson, P. D. 2007. Weed and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response to diclosulam applied postemergence. Weed Technol 21:618–622.Google Scholar
Lancaster, S. H., Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Burke, I. C., Corbin, F. T., Sheldon, Y. S., Wilcut, J. W., and Monks, D. W. 2005. Influence of selected fungicides on efficacy of clethodim and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 19:397–403.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. 2004. Strongarm applied postemergence in Georgia peanut. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Ed. Soc 36:30.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Tredaway, J. A., Jordan, D. L., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management in peanuts with reduced rates of diclosulam, flumioxazin, and imazapic. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:36.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207–224. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., editors. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society. 566 p.Google Scholar