Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-zzvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T07:20:17.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control, Yield, and Net Returns Using Imazethapyr in Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut ,
F. Robert Walls Jr.  and
David N. Horton
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., Suffolk, VA 23437
F. Robert Walls Jr.
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Corp., Goldsboro, NC 27530
David N. Horton
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Sci., Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1988 and 1989 to evaluate imazethapyr for weed control in peanuts. Imazethapyr was applied PRE or POST at 3, 5, or 7 weeks after crop emergence (WAE) at 0.071 kg ai ha–1. Imazethapyr applied PRE controlled common lambsquarters 85%, prickly sida 92%, and a mixture of entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglory species 77%. Morningglory control was at least 91% with imazethapyr plus metolachlor PRE followed by imazethapyr plus 2,4–DB or imazethapyr plus acifluorfen at 3, 5, or 7 WAE. Yields from systems that included metolachlor plus imazethapyr PRE followed by imazethapyr plus acifluorfen, imazethapyr plus 2,4–DB, or acifluorfen plus 2,4–DB at 3 WAE were greater than yields from the handweeded check. All systems with imazethapyr plus metolachlor PRE followed by any POST treatment except imazethapyr plus acifluorfen 7 WAE provided net returns equivalent to the herbicide standard of metolachlor PRE and acifluorfen and bentazon plus 2,4–DB 3 WAE. All systems except imazethapyr PRE provided greater net returns than the handweeded weed–free check.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5–[2–chloro–4–(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]–2–nitrobenzoic acidbentazon, 3–(1–methylethyl)–(1H)–2,1,3–benzothiadiazin–4(3H)–one 2,2–dioxideimazethapyr, (±)–2–[4,5–dihydro–4–methyl–4–(1–methylethyl)–5–oxo–1H–imidazol–2–yl]–5–ethyl–3–pyridinecarboxylic acidmetolachlor, 2–chloro–N–(2–ethyl–6–methylphenyl)–N–(2–methoxy–1–methylethyl)acetamide2,4–DB, 4–(2,4–dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth. # PHBPUpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florigiant’Economic analysisnet returnsSIDSPCHEALIPOLAIPOHEIPOHGPHBPU

Information

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 238 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1983. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206—249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
2. Cole, T. A., Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hicks, T. V. 1989. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), soybeans (Glycine max), and selected weed species. Weed Sci. 37:639–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Davidson, J. I. Jr., Whitaker, T. B., and Dickens, J. W. 1982. Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, and marketing of peanuts in the United States. Pages 571—623 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408–420.Google Scholar
5. Gallimore, G. G., Updike, G. H., and Stuart, S. G. III. 1988—1989. Crop enterprise cost analysis for southeast Virginia. Virginia Coop. Ext. Serv., VPI & SU. Blacksburg, VA. 43 p.Google Scholar
6. Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
7. Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. Pages 326—410 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar
8. Swann, C. W. and Wilcut, J. W. 1990. Timing of postemergence herbicides for peanut profitability. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 22:59.Google Scholar
9. Walls, F. R., Wilcut, J. W., and York, A. C. 1990. Rate and application studies with imazethapyr in peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 22:56.Google Scholar
10. Walls, F. R. Jr., Muzyk, K. R., and Wiley, G. 1989. Influence of timing of imazethapyr applications in peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 21:55.Google Scholar
11. Wilcut, J. W., Swann, C. W., and Hagwood, H. B. 1990. Lactofen systems for broadleaf weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 4:819–823.Google Scholar
12. Wilcut, J. W. and Walls, F. R. 1990. Cracking and postemergence herbicide combinations for weed control in Virginia peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 22:58.Google Scholar
13. Wilcut, J. W. and Walls, F. R. 1990. Herbicide combinations for weed control in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:71.Google Scholar
14. Wilcut, J. W. and Walls, F. R. 1989. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in Virginia peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 21:57.Google Scholar
15. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems without dinoseb for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:385–391.Google Scholar
16. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivations. Weed Sci. 35:711–715.Google Scholar
17. Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Patterson, M. G. 1987. Economic assessment of weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:433–437.Google Scholar
18. Williams, J. T. 1963. Biological flora of the British Isles, Chenopodium album L. J. Ecol. 51:711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wilson, H. P. and Hines, T. E. 1987. Snapbean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) response to acifluorfen. Weed Technol. 1:18–21.Google Scholar
20. Young, J. H., Person, N. K. Jr., Donald, J. O., and Mayfield, W. D. 1982. Harvesting, curing, and energy utilization. Pages 458—485 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995.Google Scholar