Imazethapyr Systems for Peanut (<i>Arachis hypogaea</i> L.)

Richburg, John S.; Wilcut, John W.; Vencill, William K.

doi:10.3146/i0095-3679-23-1-2

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, injury following application of imazapic plus flumioxazin still exceeded that by imazapic alone or in combination with diclosulam. Stunting of peanut following imazapic application was reported previously (Richburg et al, 1995(Richburg et al, , 1996Wehtje et al, 2000).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Since both herbicides provide residual control, they can prevent reinfestation. However, herbicides such as acifluorfen {5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid} , bentazon [3-(1-methylethyl)-(lH)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide], and paraquat (1,l'-dimethyl-4,4'bipyrdinium ion) do not provide residual weed control (Wilcut et al, 1995;Richburg et al, 1996;Wehtje et al, 2000). Growers often apply residual herbicides such as metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] and dimethenamid {2chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethylthien-3-yl)-acetamide} with these contact herbicides to control emerged weeds and provide residual weed control (Wilcutetal., 1995;Gricharetal.,2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tolerance of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Herbicides Applied Postemergence

Jordan

Spears²,

Wilcut

2003

Peanut Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments were conducted from 1999 through 2001 in North Carolina to determine peanut response under weed-free conditions to applications of postemergence herbicides. In one set of experiments, peanut tolerance to acifluorfen plus bentazon or acifluorfen plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB applied alone or with diclosulam, dimethenamid, flumioxazin, or metolachlor 6 to 8 wk after peanut emergence was evaluated. In a second set of experiments, paraquat plus bentazon was applied alone or with diclosulam, dimethenamid, flumioxazin, imazethapyr, or metolachlor 2 wk after peanut emergence. In a third set of experiments, imazapic was applied alone or with diclosulam or flumioxazin 3 to 4 wk after peanut emergence. In the fourth experiment, 2,4-DB was applied approximately 7, 5, or 3 wk before digging and inversion of vines. Flumioxazin applied alone or with aciflurofen plus bentazon (with or without 2,4-DB) injured peanut more than diclosulam, dimethenamid, or metolachlor applied alone or with acifluorfen plus bentazon or aciflurofen plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB. Flumioxazin reduced pod yield 620 kg/ha when compared to non-treated peanut. Additionally, acifluorfen plus bentazon and acifluorfen plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB reduced yield by 200 and 150 kg/ha, respectively, when compared with non-treated peanut. Flumioxazin applied with paraquat plus bentazon was more injurious than diclosulam, dimethenamid, imazethapyr, or metolachlor applied with paraquat plus bentazon. There was no difference in peanut injury when paraquat plus bentazon was applied alone or with diclosulam. Dimethenamid or metolachlor increased injury by paraquat plus bentazon. Although diclosulam did not affect peanut injury from imazapic, injury increased when imazapic was applied with flumioxazin. When pooled over nine sites, 2,4-DB did not adversely affect pod yield, gross economic value, or percent seed germination when applied 7, 5, or 3 wk before vine inversion.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerance of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Herbicides Applied Postemergence

Jordan

Spears²,

Wilcut

2003

Peanut Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Imazethapyr is the first herbicide registered in peanut to provide residual broadleaf and perennial nutsedge weed control (Richburg et al, 1995(Richburg et al, , 1996Wilcut et al, 1991aWilcut et al, , 1991bWilcut et al, , 1994. Based on these results, a differential peanut cultivar response to imazethapyr should not be a problem.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Imazethapyr is registered for use in peanut as a PPI, PRE, EPOST, or POST treatment. Imazethapyr provides soil residual control of numerous broadleaf weeds and perennial sedges (Richburg et al, 1995(Richburg et al, , 1996Wilcut et al, 1991aWilcut et al, , 1991bWilcut et al, , 1994. The registration of new peanut herbicides necessitates determination if tolerance differs among peanut cultivars (Hammons, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Similarly, postemergence application of imazethapyr provided >90% control of these weed species (Table 10), particularly when applied to small weeds within 10 d of weed emergence (Grey et al 1995; Wilcut et al 1994a). Regardless of application timing, imazethapyr does not provide good control of D. tortuosum and S. obtusifolia , the two most prevalent and troublesome weeds in peanut in the southeastern United States (Klingaman et al 1992; Richburg 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Wilcut et al 1991b, 1994a). It also shows poor control of A. artemisiifolia , a prevalent weed species in North Carolina and Virginia peanut fields (York et al 1995).…”

Section: Chemical Weed Control In Peanut In the United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of chemical weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the United States: challenges and opportunities

Daramola,

Iboyi,

MacDonald

et al. 2023

Weed Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbicides are the primary tool for controlling weeds in peanut and are crucial to sustainable peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production in the United States (US). The literature on chemical weed management in peanut in the past 53 years (1970 to 2022) in the US was systematically reviewed to highlight the strength and weaknesses of different herbicides and identify current research gaps in chemical weed management. Residual weed control in peanut is achieved mainly with dimethenamid-P, ethalfluralin, flumioxazin, pendimethalin, and S-metolachlor. More recently, the use of the PPO-inhibitor, and ALS-inhibitors such as diclosulam for residual weed control in peanut has increased considerably. Postemergence broadleaf weed control in peanut is achieved mainly with acifluorfen, bentazon, diclosulam, imazapic, lactofen, paraquat, and 2,4−DB, while the graminicides clethodim and sethoxydim are the major postemergence grass weed control herbicides in peanut. Although several herbicides are available for weed control in peanut, no single herbicide can provide season-long weed control due to limited application timing, lack of extended residual activity, variability in weed control spectrum, and rotational restrictions. Therefore, effective weed management in peanut often requires herbicide mixtures and/or sequential application of pre-plant incorporated, preemergence, and/or postemergence herbicides. However, the available literature showed a substantive range in herbicide efficacy due to variations in environmental conditions and flushes of weed germination across years and locations. Despite the relatively high efficacy of herbicides, the selection of herbicide-resistant weeds is another area of increasing concern. Future research should focus on developing new strategies for preventing or delaying the development of resistance and improving herbicide efficacy within the context of climate change and emerging constraints such as water shortages, temperature rise and increasing CO2 concentration.

show abstract

Imazethapyr Systems for Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Tolerance of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Herbicides Applied Postemergence

Tolerance of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Herbicides Applied Postemergence

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

A systematic review of chemical weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the United States: challenges and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About