Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:47:27.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Sulfentrazone Rate and Application Method on Peanut Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey ,
David C. Bridges ,
H. Gary Hancock  and
Jerry W. Davis
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
H. Gary Hancock
Affiliation:
Southern Region and IR4 coordinator North America for FMC Corp., 832 Barnes Mill Road, Hamilton, GA 31811
Jerry W. Davis
Affiliation:
Experimental Statistics, University of Georgia, Georgia Experiment Station, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tgrey@tifton.uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2000 and 2001 in Plains, GA, to determine peanut and weed response to the residual herbicides sulfentrazone, imazapic, diclosulam, and flumioxazin. Herbicide treatments included sulfentrazone applied preemergence (PRE) or preplant incorporated (PPI) at 112, 168, 224, and 280 g ai/ha, imazapic postemergence (POST) at 71 g ai/ha, diclosulam PPI at 26 g ai/ha, and flumioxazin PRE at 88 g ai/ha. Peanut exhibited early-season injury from all herbicide treatments, ranging from 0 to 10% for sulfentrazone PPI or PRE, 10% for imazapic, 3 to 23% for flumioxazin, and 1 to 7% for diclosulam. Yields were similar for sulfentrazone PPI- or PRE-treated and flumioxazin-, imazapic-, and diclosulam-treated peanut. Yellow nutsedge control was 83% or greater with all rates of sulfentrazone PRE or PPI, 83 and 90% with diclosulam, and 96 and 99% with imazapic, respectively. Flumioxazin did not control yellow nutsedge or wild poinsettia. Tall morningglory control was 82% or greater with imazapic, diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone PPI or PRE at 168 g/ha or higher. Florida beggarweed control was 88% or greater with diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone PRE at 224 and 280 g/ha. Overall, peanut tolerance to sulfentrazone at 112 to 280 g/ha PPI and PRE was high and yield was equivalent to the currently registered peanut residual herbicides.

Keywords

DiclosulamflumioxazinimazapicsulfentrazoneFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sec) L., # DEDTOtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUwild poinsettia, Euphorbia heterophylla L. # EPHHLYellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Peanut injurypeanut yieldsusceptibility to herbicidesALS, acetolactate synthasePOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceVE, vegetative emergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 619 - 625
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

Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Askew, S. D., Hinton, J. D., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:450–456.Google Scholar
Blum, R. R., Isgrigg, J. Jr., and Yelverton, F. H. 2000. Purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Technol. 14:357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, N. C. 1974. Physical properties of mineral soils. in The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York: MacMillian. Pp. 40–70.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Hauser, E. W., Ethredge, W. J., and Cecil, S. R. 1976. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. II. Effects of cultivation, weeds, and SADH. Weed Sci. 24:29–39.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: American Peanut Research and Education Society. Pp. 206–249.Google Scholar
Bunnell, B. T., McCarty, L. B., Lowe, D. B., and Higingbottom, J. K. 2001. Kyllinga squamaulata control in bermudagrass turf. Weed Technol. 15:310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J. and Brecke, B. J. 1984. Growth and development of Florida beggarweed selections. Weed Sci. 37:207–210.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Brecke, B. J. 1991. Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) growth and development in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 5:147–153.Google Scholar
Dirks, J. T., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Wiebold, W. J., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:628–639.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 48:300.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:304.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed survey southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 42:300.Google Scholar
Gooden, D. T. and Murdock, E. C. 1999. Response of flue-cured tobacco to Spartan (sulfentrazone) at five locations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:18–19.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Bridges, D. C. 2000. Effect of emergence and herbicide application timing on Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) competition in peanut (Arachis hypogea). Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc 32:23.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 2000a. Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:51–56.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Eastin, E. F. 2001. Influence of application rate and timing of diclosulam on weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci 28:13–19.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., Eastin, E. F., and MacDonald, G. E. 2002. Influence of application rate and timing of flumioxazin on weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 29:24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., Adams, J. Jr., Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Hancock, H. G., and Kwon, O. 2000b. Behavior of sulfentrazone in ionic exchange resins, electrophoresis gels, and cation-saturated soils. Weed Sci. 48:239–247.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 45:733–738.Google Scholar
Haar, M. J., Fennimore, S. A., McGiffen, M. E., Lanini, W. T., and Bell, C. E. 2002. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides in vegetable crops. HortTechnol 12:95–99.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1998. Spartan DF performance in tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:34.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1999. Sulfentrazone performance on key weeds in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:65–66.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance or weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1994. Use of F6285 for weed control in peanut: efficacy and crop injury. Peanut Sci 21:65–68.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1998. Sulfentrazone for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:684–689.Google Scholar
Manning, G. R. and Fennimore, S. A. 2001. Evaluation of low-rate herbicides to supplement methyl bromide alternatives fumigants to control weeds in strawberry. HortTechnol 11:603–609.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Published Estimates. Washington, DC: NASS–USDA.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Sm, R. J. eda. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:233–238.Google Scholar
[NRCS] National Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Georgia Soil Survey. Athens, GA: USDA–NRCS.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 2000. Sulfentrazone dissipation in a Tennessee soil. Weed Technol. 14:100–105.Google Scholar
Pappas-Fader, T., Cook, J. F., Butler, T., and Lana, P. J. 1993. Resistance of California arrowhead and smallflower umbrella sedge to sulfonylurea herbicides. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc 46:76.Google Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. M. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11:384–391.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 405–406.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Prostko, E. P., and Webster, T. E. 2002. Is Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) resistant to ALS and dinitroaniline herbicides? Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:189.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied at layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Weed Technol. 16:142–148.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10:762–765.Google Scholar
Walker, E. R., Mueller, T. C., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Spartan for weed control in tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:32.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Wilcut, J. W., and Coble, H. D. 1997. Influence of AC 263,222 rate and application method on weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:520–526.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Padgett, D., and Martin, N. R. Jr. 2000. Imazapic-based herbicide systems for peanut and factors affecting activity on Florida beggarweed. Peanut Sci 27:17–22.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C. esculentus) to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:382–387.Google Scholar