Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T21:13:58.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of Chemical and Mechanical Methods for Controlling Weeds in Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David C. Bridges ,
Robert H. Walker ,
John A. McGuire  and
Neil R. Martin
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. AAES Journal No. 3-83547
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. AAES Journal No. 3-83547
John A. McGuire
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. AAES Journal No. 3-83547
Neil R. Martin
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. AAES Journal No. 3-83547
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted from 1978 through 1980 at Headland, AL, to evaluate the use of herbicides, mechanical cultivation, and hand-hoeing as components of a total weed control system for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Herbicides or two cultivations alone failed to provide acceptable weed control, peanut yields, or net returns for the 3-yr period. However, adding two cultivations to the herbicide treatments produced acceptable weed control, peanut yields, and net returns for the 3-yr period. Average peanut yield for herbicide(s) plus two cultivations was 3200 kg/ha with an average net return of $260/ha. Two cultivations plus two hoeings without herbicide(s) produced good results with an average 3-yr yield of 3380 kg/ha and a net return of $280/ha. Herbicide(s) plus two cultivation treatments that had net returns equal to two cultivations plus two hoeing treatments were: dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol) at 5.0 kg ai/ha applied at ground-cracking ($300/ha); dinoseb + alachlor [2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)acetanilide] at 1.7 + 3.4 kg ai/ha applied at ground-cracking ($310/ha); and alachlor at 4.5 kg/ha applied preemergence ($320/ha). Treatments containing herbicide(s) plus two cultivations plus two hoeings did not substantially improve weed control, peanut yields, or net returns over herbicide(s) plus two cultivations.

Keywords

Desmodium tortuosumDigitaria sanguinalisCassia obtusifoliaIpomoea spp.economicscultivationsherbicideshand-hoeingsDEDTODIGSACASOBIAQTA

Information

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , September 1984 , pp. 584 - 591
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Boyle, L. W. 1967. A factorial study of certain schemes of peanut culture. Res. Bull., Univ. Ga. Agric. Exp. Stns. No. 18.Google Scholar
2. Boyle, L. W. and Hammons, R. O. 1956. Cultural practices with respect to peanut yields and control of southern blight and root rot. Mimeogr. Univ. Ga. Agric. Exp. Stns. N.S. No. 31.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Backman, P. A., and Rodriguez-Kabana, R. 1977. Influence of oxadiazon on peanuts and weeds. Peanut Sci. 4:37–41.Google Scholar
4. Hauser, E. W., Cecil, S. R., and Dowler, C. C. 1973. Systems of weed control for peanuts. Weed Sci. 21:76–180.Google Scholar
5. 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
6. Hauser, E. W. and Parham, S. A. 1964. Herbicide mixtures for weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Res. 4:338–350.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, E. W. and Parham, S. A. 1969. Effects of annual weeds and cultivation on the yield of peanuts. Weed Res. 9:192–197.Google Scholar
8. National Research Council Subcommittee on Weeds. 1968. Volume 2, Weed Control. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC. 471 pp.Google Scholar
9. Pieczarka, S. J., Wright, W. L., and Alder, E. F. 1962. Trifluralin as a soil-incorporated preemergence herbicide for agronomic crops. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 15:92–96.Google Scholar
10. Rud, O. E. and Chappell, W. E. 1959. The performance of DNBP in weed control in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 12:5–11.Google Scholar
11. Scholl, J. M. and Searcy, V. S. 1949. Effect of chemical preemergence weed control treatments on stands of weeds and stands and yields of peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 2:40–42.Google Scholar
12. Santelman, P. W. and Matlock, R. S. 1964. The influence of pre- and postemergence herbicides on the yield and quality of Spanish peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 17:132–137.Google Scholar
13. Searcy, V. S. 1952. Effects of preemergence chemical application on peanuts planted at various spacing. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 5:116–117.Google Scholar
14. Searcy, V. S. 1953. The influence of chemicals on seeds and on stands, yields, and percentage sound mature kernels of peanuts when applied as preemergence sprays. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 6:138–140.Google Scholar
15. Shaw, W. C., York, E. T., and Gregory, W. C. 1951. The effect of chemicals on weeds and the stand and yield of peanuts, when applied as preemergence sprays. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 4:112–120.Google Scholar
16. Upchurch, R. P. and Selman, F. L. 1963. Peanut weed control research in North Carolina (a progress report). Proc. South. Weed Conf. 16:88.Google Scholar
17. Walker, R. L. and Kletke, D. D. 1971. Users' Manual Oklahoma State Univ. Crop Budget Generator. Progress Report P-656.Google Scholar