Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:30:17.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual Grass Control in Strip-Tillage Peanut Production with Delayed Applications of Pendimethalin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III ,
Eric P. Prostko  and
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Eric P. Prostko
Affiliation:
Coastal Plain Experiment Station, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
Affiliation:
Coastal Plain Experiment Station, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Carroll.Johnson@ars.usda.gov.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In strip-tillage peanut production, situations occur when dinitroaniline herbicides are not applied in a timely manner. In these cases, dinitroaniline herbicides would be applied days or weeks after seeding. However, there is no information that documents the effects of delayed applications on weed control. Trials were conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2007 in Georgia to determine the weed control efficacy of delayed applications of pendimethalin in strip-tillage peanut production. Treatments included seven timings of pendimethalin application and three pendimethalin-containing herbicide combinations. Timings of application were immediately after seeding (PRE), vegetative emergence of peanut (VE), 1 wk after VE (VE+1wk), VE+2wk, VE+3wk, VE+4wk, and a nontreated control. Pendimethalin containing herbicide programs included pendimethalin plus paraquat, pendimethalin plus imazapic, and pendimethalin alone. Among the possible treatment combinations was a current producer standard timing for nonpendimethalin weed control programs in peanut, which was either imazapic or paraquat alone applied VE+3wk. Pendimethalin alone did not effectively control Texas millet regardless of time of application (69 to 77%), whereas southern crabgrass was controlled by pendimethalin alone PRE (87%). Delayed applications of pendimethalin controlled Texas millet and southern crabgrass when combined with either paraquat or imazapic, with imazapic being the preferred combination due to better efficacy on southern crabgrass than paraquat at most delayed applications. Peanut yield was improved when any of the herbicide combinations were applied PRE compared to later applications. Across all times of application, pendimethalin plus imazapic effectively maximized peanut yield with interference from annual grasses.

En la producción de cacahuate o maní (Arachis hypogaea (strip-tillage peanut) ocurren situaciones diferentes cuando los herbicidas dinitroanilina no son aplicados de una manera escalonada. En estos casos, los herbicidas con dinitroanilina deberían ser aplicados días o semanas después de la siembra. Sin embargo no existe información que documente los efectos de la aplicación tardía en el control de malezas. Se llevaron a cabo diversos estudios en 2004, 2005 y 2007 en Georgia para determinar la eficacia del control de malezas en aplicaciones de pendimethalin en la producción mecanizada de cacahuate o maní (strip tilllage). Los tratamientos incluyeron siete etapas de aplicación de pendimethalin, tres aplicaciones del mismo producto conteniendo combinaciones de herbicidas. Las etapas de aplicación fueron inmediatamente después de la siembra (PRE), en emergencia vegetativa de cacahuate (VE), una semana después (VE+1wk), VE+2wk, VE+3wk, VE+4wk y un testigo no tratado. Los programas combinados conteniendo pendimethalin y otros herbicidas incluyeron pendimethalin más paraquat, pendimethalin más imazapic y solo pendimethalin. Entre las combinaciones de tratamientos posibles estuvo una etapa estandar la cual tuvo en forma alternada, imazapic o paraquat solos, aplicados en VE+3wks. El pendimethalin solo no controló con eficiencia el Texas Mollet (mijo de Texas) (69 al 77%), independientemente de su tiempo de aplicación mientras el southern crabgrass fue controlado por la pre aplicación de pendimethalin sin ninguna mezcla (87%). Las malezas Texas millet y southern crabgrass fueron controladas con aplicaciones tardías de combinaciones de paraquat e imazapic siendo la combinación de imazapic la preferida debido a la mejor eficacia sobre el southern crabgrass que el paraquat en la mayoría de las aplicaciones tardías. El rendimiento de cacahuate se incrementó cuando cualquiera de las combinaciones de herbicida se aplicó en (pre-siembra) en comparación con las aplicaciones tardías. Entre todas las etapas de aplicación, la combinación de pendimethalin mas imazapic fue la más efectiva para maximizar el rendimiento de cacahuate con presencia de estas malezas anuales.

Keywords

Imazapicparaquatpendimethalinsouthern crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) KoelTexas millet, Urochloa texana (Buckl.) R. Websterpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L., ‘C99R’Conservation tillagegroundnutsouthern crabgrassTexas panicum
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 5
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: Texas A&M University, 5810 96th Street, Unit A, Lubbock, TX 79424.

References

Literature Cited

Appleby, A. P. and Valverde, B. E. 1989. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in plants. Weed Technol 3:198–206.Google Scholar
Beasley, J., Bader, M., Baldwin, J., Harris, G., Padgett, B., Brown, S. L., and MacDonald, G. 1997. Peanut Production Field Guide. Tifton, GA. Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 1146. 25 p.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Todd, J., Culbreath, A., Baldwin, J., and Beasley, J. 1999. Tomato spotted wilt virus of peanut: Identifying and avoiding high risk situations. Tifton, GA. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 1165. 6 p.Google Scholar
Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr., and Coble, H. D. 1982. Interference of broadleaf signalgrass (Bracharia platyphylla) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci 30:45–49.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Prostko, E. P., Bridges, D. C., Johnson, W. C. III, Eastin, E. F., Vencill, W. K., Brecke, B. J., MacDonald, G. E., Tredaway, J. A., Everest, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Residual weed control with imazapic, diclosulam, and flumioxazin in southeastern peanut. Peanut Sci 30:22–28.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 2005. Using herbicides in a peanut strip-tillage production system. Crop Manage. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/2005/peanut/. Accessed: January 8, 2008.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Santelmann, P. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Rud, O. E. 1973. Controlling weeds in peanuts. Pages 327–360. in. Peanuts—Culture and Uses. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Association, Inc. Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) interference in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and implications for treatment decisions. Peanut Sci 32:68–72.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Brenneman, T. B., Baker, S. H., Johnson, A. W., Sumner, D. R., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2001. Tillage and pest management considerations in a peanut-cotton rotation in the southeastern coastal plain. Agron. J. 93:570–576.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2002. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in strip-tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea) production. Peanut Sci 29:141–145.Google Scholar
McCarty, M. T. 1983. PhD dissertation. Economic Thresholds of Annual Grasses in Agronomic Crops. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 58 p.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Johnson, W. C. III, and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2001. Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 15:36–41.Google Scholar
Sholar, J. R., Mozingo, R. W., and Beasley, J. P. Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. Pages 354–382. in. H. E. Pattee and H. T. Stalker, eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Tubbs, R. S. and Gallaher, R. N. 2005. Conservation tillage and herbicide management for two peanut cultivars. Agron. J. 97:500–504.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1990. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol 4:394–406.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc 58:291–306.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci 34:308–311.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanuts. Weed Sci 25:43–47.Google Scholar