Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T13:04:12.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Assessment of Weed Control Systems for Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John W. Wilcut ,
Glenn R. Wehtje  and
Michael G. Patterson
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-861015
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-861015
Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-861015
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional weed control systems based on soil-applied herbicides and cultivations were compared with systems utilizing postemergence grass herbicides for Texas panicum (Panicum texanum Buckle. # PANTE) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner′) production. Maximum net returns ($150/ha) and peanut yield were achieved with traditional systems utilizing benefin [N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine] applied preplant incorporated plus alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamide] and dinoseb [2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitrophenol] applied at ground cracking and two cultivations. The postemergence system using alachlor plus dinoseb applied at ground cracking and sethoxydim {2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio) propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one} applied postemergence also provided maximum net returns ($146/ha) and peanut yield.

Keywords

Net returnsPANTEIPOLACASOB
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 433 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

1. Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut. Peanut Sci. 9:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 32:584–591.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and Their Control in Peanuts. Pages 206–249 in Peanut Science and Technology, Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, Texas 77995.Google Scholar
4. Chandler, J. M. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Growth characteristics and herbicide susceptibility of Texas panicum. Weed Sci. 17:91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed Survey–Southern States. Res. Rpt. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W., Cecil, S. R., and Dowler, C. C. 1973. Systems of weed control for peanuts. Weed Sci. 21:176–180.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, E. W., Dowler, C. C., Jellum, M. D., and Cecil, S. R. 1974. Effects of herbicide-crop rotation on nutsedge, annual weeds, and crops. Weed Sci. 22:172–176.Google Scholar
8. Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriquez-Kabanana, R. 1982. Peanut Plant Diseases. Pages 326–410 in Peanut Science and Technology, Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc. Inc., Yoakum, Texas 77995.Google Scholar