Diclosulam Does Not Influence Yields in Eight Virginia Market-Type Peanut (<i>Arachis hypogaea</i>) Cultivars<sup>1</sup>

Bailey, William A.; Wilcut, John W.; Spears, Janet F.; Isleib, T. G.; Langston, V. B.

doi:10.1614/0890-037x(2000)014[0402:ddniyi]2.0.co;2

Cited by 24 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In previous research, only POST applications of chlorimuron had an influence on the incidence of TSWV in peanut (Prostko et al 2009). In other peanut research, applications of diclosulam (PPI), flumioxazin (PRE), imazapic (POST), paraquat (POST), and 2,4-DB (POST) did not affect the incidence of TSWV (Bailey et al 2000;Faircloth and Prostko 2010;Tubbs et al 2010;Wilcut et al 2001). The mechanism of how certain herbicides influence TSWV in peanut has not yet been discovered.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peanut Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to limited hectares and production in comparison to field corn, soybean, and wheat, commercial research and development efforts by major manufacturers for potential new peanut herbicides are minimal. Therefore, new herbicides developed for large hectare crops should be evaluated for potential use in peanut. Field trials were conducted in Ty Ty and Plains Georgia in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate the tolerance of peanut to PRE and POST applications of pyroxasulfone at five rates (0, 120, 240, 360, and 480 g ai/ha). Pyroxasulfone did not cause significant peanut injury at the Ty Ty location. In Plains, PRE applications of pyroxasulfone caused significant crop stunting, particularly at the 360 and 480 g/ha rates. In Ty Ty, PRE applications of pyroxasulfone also resulted in greater expression of tomato spotted wilt virus than POST applications. Peanut yields were not reduced by any rate or timing of pyroxasulfone. These results suggest that pyroxasulfone may have some potential to be utilized in peanut.Key Words: crop injury, tomato spotted wilt virus, yield.In 2010, peanut was planted on 522,000 ha in the U.S. (Anonymous 2011). In contrast, field corn, soybean, and wheat were planted on 36,000,000, 31,000,000, and 22,000,000 ha, respectively (Anonymous 2011). Consequently, commercial research and development efforts for new herbicides are focused in these crops and not in peanut Pyroxasulfone is an inhibitor of very-longchain-fatty acids and should be categorized within the K3 group of herbicides (Tanetani et al. 2009). Other common K3 herbicides include acetochlor, alachlor, butachlor, dimethenamid-p, flufenacet, Smetolachlor, and propachlor (Senseman 2007). Smetolachlor is frequently used in peanut for the control of various weeds including yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) and Benghal dayflower (Commelina benghalensis L.) (Grichar et al. 2001;Grichar et al. 2008;Prostko et al. 2005).Little information about the tolerance of legume crops to pyroxasulfone has been published in the literature. Although pyroxasulfone was initially targeted for PRE weed control in corn, soybean has shown good tolerance The soil type at the Ponder Research Station was a Tifton sand with 96% sand, 2% silt, 2% clay, 1.2% organic matter, and pH 6.0. The soil type at the Southwest Experiment Station was a Greenville sandy loam with 71% sand, 13% silt, 16% clay, 1% organic matter, and pH 6.0. Cultivars, planting dates, inverting, and harvest dates are presented in Table 1. Common production practices and Cooperative Extension recommendations were used at all times. Supplemental irrigation was applied as needed.Herbicide treatments were arranged in a factorial design that included two application timings (PRE or POST) and five pyroxasulfone rates (0, 120, 240, 360, and 480 g ai/ha). All treatments were replicated four times. PRE treatments were activated with irrigation within 48 hours of application. POST treatments of pyroxasulfone were applied between 44 and 51 days after peanut planting and included a non-ionic surfactant...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peanut Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…None ofthe cultivars evaluated were negatively impacted « 5% visual injury and no yield reduction) by either imazapic or diclosulam applied at twice the labeled rate in any of the 3 yr of the study (data not shown). Previous research has indicated similar results (no effect on peanut yield) with diclosulam applied to virginia-type cultivars (Wilcut et al, 1997;Bailey et al, 1999Bailey et al, , 2000. Others have evaluated imazapic on viginia-, spanish-, and runner-type cultivars Wilcut et al, 1996;Dotray et al, 2001).…”

Section: Nonementioning

confidence: 89%

“…They reported some initial peanut injury from imazapic at 71 g/ha but no effect on yield. Bailey et al (2000) evaluated the tolerance of eight virginia market-type cultivars to diclosulam at 36 g/ha and observed~3% visual injury and no effect on peanut yield. Previous research with other herbicides has in some instances indicated differential cultivar response (]ohnson et al, 1992), while tolerance to other herbicides was independent of cultivar (Grichar and Colburn, 1993;Johnson et al, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Diclosulam- and Imazapic-Based Weed Control Systems in Peanut1

Brecke¹,

Wehtje²,

Paudel

2002

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted in Florida and Alabama in 1998and 1999to evaluateimazapic [70gailhapreemergence (PRE) or early postemergence ( EPOST)], diclosulam (18 or 26 g ailha PRE or 18 glha EPOST) or imazapic + diclosulam (35 + 13 glha PRE or 35 + 9 glha EPOST). These treatments were applied alone or supplementedwith eitheraparaquat + bentazon tank mixture or 2,4-DB. The intentwasto determine ifdiclosulam, which has a mode of action similar to imazapic and is less persistent and less costly, could be incorporated into systemswith other herbicides and thereby offer an alternative to imazapic. Maximumyield and economic return were consistently associated with only two treatments, imazapic at 70 glha EPOST and imazapic + diclosulam at 35 + 9 glha EPOST. However, none of the diclosulambased systems provided a more favorable economic return than imazapic applied alone due to poor sicklepod control with diclosulam. Sicklepod control with diclosulam was improved with the addition of either paraquat + bentazon or 2,4-DB,but control was less than that obtained with imazapic. Diclosulam-based systems could be identified that were as effective as imazapic alone in controlling Florida beggarweed (diclosulam 26 glha EPOST or imazapic + diclosulam PRE or EPOST), bristly starbur (diclosulam 18 glha PRE or imazapic + diclosulam PRE or EPOST) and yellow nutsedge (imazapic + diclosulam EPOST). Thus, diclosulambased systems may offer an economic advantage over imazapic in areas void of sicklepod. Neither diclosulam nor imazapic adversely affected any of five runner-type peanut cultivars (Georgia Green, Southern Runner, ViruGuard, Florida MDR 98, or Florida C-99R) when applied at twice labeled rates.

show abstract

“…Johnson et al, (1993) reported there was no yield response of Florunner, NC 7, or Southern Runner to multiple herbicide applications, but canopy widths were affected. Diclosulam, an ALS-inhibiting herbicide like imazethapyr and imazapic did not affect growth, disease incidences, grade parameters, or yield in eight virginia peanut cultivars (Bailey et al, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Response of Runner, Spanish, and Virginia Peanut cultivars to Imazethapyr

Richburg¹,

Wilcut²,

Grichar³

2006

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments conducted in 1992 and 1993 in Georgia and Texas evaluated response of five runner-, three virginia-, and four spanish-type peanut cultivars to imazethapyr applied earlypostemergence (EPOST) at 71 g/ha. Visual injury was less than 11% at Tifton and no visible injury on any cultivar was noted later in the season. Canopy width was similar with or without imazethapyr for each cultivar at Tifton in 1992. In 1993, all cultivars at Tifton exhibited a linear canopy width response and regression coefficients were less for Florunner, Southern Runner, Sunrunner, NC 7, and NC-V11 treated with imazethapyr indicating slower canopy closure. The only significant effect on peanut grade factors and yield was the main effect of cultivar. The occurence of late and early leafspot, tomato spotted wilt, and southern stem rot was independent of both cultivar and imazethapyr. In Texas, the cultivar Spanco had higher canopy height and width 3 weeks after treatment (3 WAT) when treated with imazethapyr. The only significant effect on canopy height and width in Texas at 6 WAT was cultivar. There were no significant effects on damaged and other kernels, total sound mature kernels, or peanut yield in Texas.

show abstract

Diclosulam Does Not Influence Yields in Eight Virginia Market-Type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Cultivars¹

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

Peanut Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

Peanut Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

Comparison Between Diclosulam- and Imazapic-Based Weed Control Systems in Peanut1

Response of Runner, Spanish, and Virginia Peanut cultivars to Imazethapyr

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Diclosulam Does Not Influence Yields in Eight Virginia Market-Type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Cultivars1

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

Peanut Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

Peanut Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

Comparison Between Diclosulam- and Imazapic-Based Weed Control Systems in Peanut1

Response of Runner, Spanish, and Virginia Peanut cultivars to Imazethapyr

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Diclosulam Does Not Influence Yields in Eight Virginia Market-Type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Cultivars¹