Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T01:51:57.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Green Peanut Tolerance to Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Travis C. Teuton ,
Christopher L. Main ,
Gregory E. MacDonald ,
Joyce Tredaway Ducar  and
Barry J. Brecke
Travis C. Teuton*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Gregory E. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Joyce Tredaway Ducar
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, Berry College, Mt. Berry, GA 30149
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
University of Florida West Florida Research and Education Center, Milton, FL 32583
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tteuton@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Sparr, FL, in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate the response of ‘Valencia 102’ grown for the green peanut market (or boiling peanut) to preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) applications of herbicides registered for dry peanut production (roasted market). Green peanut exhibited excellent tolerance to most PRE and POST treatments. There was minimal injury (8%) from flumioxazin applications when evaluated early season in both years, and peanut quickly recovered. Norflurazon caused chlorosis to peanut foliage (23%) in both years. Yield reduction was observed in 2001 for flumioxazin (15%), metolachlor (20%), and norflurazon (41%) compared with the untreated control. However, there were no yield reductions for any of the PRE treatments in 2002. Bentazon + paraquat early postemergence (EPOST) followed by (fb) 2,4-DB POST, bentazon + paraquat EPOST fb clethodim POST, and imazapic EPOST caused ≤5% injury and had no effect on yield in either year.

Keywords

Bentazonclethodim2,4-DBflumioxazinimazapicmetolachlornorflurazonparaquatpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Valencia 102’Herbicide injurychlorimurondiclosulamdry peanutethalfluralinfluazifopgreen peanutimazethapyrpryridatesethoxydimDAP, days after plantingEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, post-emergencePRE, preemergenceWAE, weeks after emergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 719 - 722
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: University of Tennessee, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington Building, Knoxville, TN 37996
∗ Publication R-09626 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2001a. Cadre DG product label. EPA Registration 241-381. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. 8 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Zorial Rapid 80 product label. EPA Registration 100-848. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. 12 p.Google Scholar
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. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Diclosulam systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Weed Technol. 16:807–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Swann, C. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weeds to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 13:771–776.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1989. Response of peanut cultivars to selected herbicide treatments. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 42:28.Google Scholar
Brooks, N. L. and Ali, M. B. 1995. Peanuts, State-level Production Costs, Characteristics and Input Use, 1991. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Pp. 13, 21.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:743–748.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Swann, C. W. 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci 15:57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. W. and Thomas, J. S. 2001. Green Peanut Production. Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service: Web page: http://www.clemson.edu/peanuts/Green%20peanut01.pdf. Accessed: May 11, 2004.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Baughman, T. A., Keeling, J. W., Grichar, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2001. Effect of imazapic application timing on Texas peanut. Weed Technol. 15:26–29.Google Scholar
Eastin, E. F., Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, and Hicks, T. V. 1993. V-53482 and Zorial systems for weed control in Georgia peanut. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc 25:84.Google Scholar
[FAWN] Florida Automated Weather Network. 2003. Report Generator. Florida Automated Weather Network: Web page: http://fawn.ifas.ufl.edu/scripts/reportrequest.asp. Accessed: May 11, 2004.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci 23:30–36.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Lemon, R. G., Brewer, K. D., and Minton, B. W. 2001. S-metolachlor compared with metolachlor on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:107–111.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Batts, R. B., and York, A. C. 1998. Response of Virginia-type peanut to norflurazon. Peanut Sci 25:4–7.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. Tredaway, and MacDonald, G. E. 2000. Weed management systems for control of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:33.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. Tredaway, Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2003. Response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 17:89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, H. S., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. C., Branch, W. D., and Kvien, C. K. 1994. Peanut variety response to norflurazon. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 47:33.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2003. Physiological behavior of root-absorbed flumioxazin in peanut, ivyleaf morningglory, and sicklepod. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:175.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Baughman, T. A. 1999. Peanut Herbicide Injury Symptomology Guide. Texas Agricultural Research Bull. SCS-1999-05. 11 p.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Johnson, W. C., and Mullinix, B. G. 2001. Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence application s of ethalfluaralin and pendimethalin in peantut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:36–41.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. K., and Kvien, C. K. 1995. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci 22:76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide (Version 8). Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 2083–2226.Google Scholar
[SRCC] Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2003. Historical Climate Summaries for Florida. Southeast Regional Climate Center: Web page: http://cirrus.dnr.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?fl3316. Accessed: May 11, 2004.Google Scholar
Teuton, J. W., van Blockland, P. J., Reynolds, J. E., and Sterns, J. A. 2002. Investing in Green Peanut Production. Teaching and Learning Paper Series. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Food and Resource Economics Department.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. 2001. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137–140.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Cranmer, J. 1997. Summary of flumioxazin performance in southeastern peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 50:7.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482 a new N-phenyl phthalimide herbicide. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:69–75.Google Scholar