Peanut Cultivar Response to S-metolachlor and Paraquat Alone and in Combination

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Grichar ◽  
Peter A. Dotray

Abstract Field experiments were conducted at Yoakum in south Texas and at Lamesa in the Texas High Plains area in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate peanut variety tolerance to S-metolachlor or paraquat alone or in combination applied postemergence 7 to 28 d after peanut emergence. Runner market-type peanut were evaluated at Yoakum (Tamrun OL02, York, and Florida 07) while runner (Flavorrunner 458) and Virginia market-types (NC-7 and Gregory) were evaluated at Lamesa. Peanut stunting with paraquat alone or S-metolachlor + pararquat combinations varied from 0 to 15% and increased as application timing was delayed. Runner market type yields were variable while Virginia market type yields were not affected by paraquat or any combinations. Peanut grade (% SMK + SS) of runner or Virgina market types were not affected by paraquat applications.

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Dotray ◽  
W. J. Grichar ◽  
T. A. Baughman ◽  
E. P. Prostko ◽  
T. L. Grey ◽  
...  

Abstract Field experiments were conducted at nine locations in Texas and Georgia in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate peanut tolerance to lactofen. Lactofen at 220 g ai/ha plus crop oil concentrate was applied to peanut at 6 leaf (lf), 6 lf followed by (fb) 15 days after the initial treatment (DAIT), 15 DAIT alone, 6 lf fb 30 DAIT, 30 DAIT alone, 6 lf fb 45 DAIT, 45 DAIT alone, 6 lf fb 60 DAIT, and 60 DAIT alone in weed-free plots. Lactofen caused visible leaf bronzing at all locations. Yield loss was observed when applications were made 45 DAIT, a timing that would correspond to plants in the R5 (beginning seed) to R6 (full seed) stage of growth. At all locations except the Texas High Plains, this application timing was within the 90 d preharvest interval. Growers who apply lactofen early in the peanut growing season to small weeds should have confidence that yields will not be negatively impacted despite dramatic above-ground injury symptoms; however, applications made later in the season, during seed fill, may adversely affect yield.


2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Dotray ◽  
T. A. Baughman ◽  
W. J. Grichar

Abstract Field experiments were conducted at six locations in Texas in 2004 and 2005 to evaluate peanut tolerance to carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl. Carfentrazone-ethyl at 27 and 36 g ai/ha or pyraflufen-ethyl at 2.6 and 3.5 g ai/ha were applied early postemergence (EP) 28 to 51 days after planting (DAP) or late postemergence (LP) 93 to 121 DAP in weed-free plots. In the Texas High Plains, carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl applied EP resulted in 62 and 48% visual injury, respectively, when rated 14 days after treatment (DAT). With the exception of the low rate of carfentrazone-ethyl at one location, this injury was greater than the injury caused by paraquat at 210 g ai/ha plus bentazon at 280 g ai/ha. All injury declined over time, but was still apparent at harvest (up to 3%). Peanut injury from applications made late postemergence did not exceed 16%. In the Rolling Plains, peanut injury did not exceed 12% at Lockett and 25% at Rochester regardless of herbicide, rate, or timing. In south Texas, peanut injury ranged from 14 to 19% and 6 to 8% following EP and LP applications, respectively. At this location, carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl at the low rate caused less injury than paraquat plus bentazon when applied EP. Peanut yield was reduced by herbicide treatment at two of six locations. Greatest yield losses were observed at Lamesa in 2004, where all carfentrazone-ethyl treatments, except the lowest rate applied LP, and all pyraflufen-ethyl treatments caused a yield reduction when compared to the non-treated control. No reduction in grade from the non-treated control was observed at the five locations where grade analysis was performed.


Plant Disease ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (9) ◽  
pp. 1621-1626 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Workneh ◽  
S. O’Shaughnessy ◽  
S. Evett ◽  
C. M. Rush

Wheat streak mosaic (WSM) caused by Wheat streak mosaic virus, which is transmitted by the wheat curl mite (Aceria tosichella), is a major yield-limiting disease in the Texas High Plains. In addition to its impact on grain production, the disease reduces water-use efficiency by affecting root development. Because of the declining Ogallala Aquifer water level, water conservation has become one of the major pressing issues in the region. Thus, questions are often raised as to whether it is worthwhile to irrigate infected fields in light of the water conservation issues, associated energy costs, and current wheat prices. To address some of these questions, field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2016 at two separate locations to determine whether grain yield could be predicted from disease severity levels, assessed early in the spring, for potential use as a decision tool for crop management, including irrigation. In both fields, disease severity assessments started in April, using a handheld hyperspectral radiometer with which reflectance measurements were taken weekly in multiple plots in arbitrarily selected locations across the fields. The relationship between WSM severity levels and grain yield for the different assessment dates were determined by fitting reflectance and yield values into the logistic regression function. The model predicted yield levels with r2 values ranging from 0.67 to 0.85 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the impact of WSM on grain yield could be fairly well predicted from early assessments of WSM severity levels. As the disease is normally progressive over time, this type of information will be useful for making management decisions of whether to continue irrigating infected fields, especially if combined with an economic threshold for WSM severity levels.


1988 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wayne Keeling ◽  
John R. Abernathy

Woollyleaf bursage [Ambrosia grayi(A. Nels.) Shinners # AMBGR] and Texas blueweed (Helianthus ciliarisDC. # HELCI) increasingly are weed problems on the Texas High Plains. Field experiments were established to evaluate dimethylamine, potassium, sodium, calcium, and aluminum salts of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) applied at 1.1, 2.2, and 4.4 kg ai/ha to infestations of each species. Initial woollyleaf bursage control was better than initial Texas blueweed control. Dimethylamine and potassium salts provided highest control levels, and increasing rates improved control. One-year control was higher for Texas blueweed than woollyleaf bursage, and 1-yr control of both species improved with increased rates.


2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. J. Grichar ◽  
P. A. Dotray

ABSTRACT Field studies were conducted in the Texas High Plains and south Texas to determine peanut response to flumioxazin and paraquat applied preemergence or 7 days after ground cracking (DAC). These herbicides were applied either alone or in combination. Smellmelon control was greater than 90% with all 7 DAC treatments while preemergence (PRE) treatments of flumioxazin plus paraquat controlled 87 to 97% in one of two years. No peanut injury was noted following either herbicide applied preemergence; however, early-season injury (stunting and leaf chlorosis/necrosis) was evident with flumioxazin and paraquat alone or in combination when applied 7 DAC. Early-season injury in south Texas from the 7 DAC applications of flumioxazin and paraquat varied from 9 to 63% with flumioxazin alone, 18 to 65% with paraquat alone, and 33 to 83% with combinations of the two herbicides. Injury in the Texas High Plains was never more than 40% with either herbicide alone or in combination. Mid-season injury in south Texas was at least 13% with any combination that included flumioxazin at 0.11 kg/ha while injury in the Texas High Plains varied from 12 to 25%. Peanut yields were not affected by flumioxazin and paraquat in the High Plains area although yields in south Texas were reduced from the untreated weed-free check with combinations of flumioxazin and paraquat.


Author(s):  
Misha R. Manuchehri ◽  
Peter A. Dotray ◽  
J. Wayne Keeling

Aim: Postemergence timing trials based on weed size were conducted near Lubbock, TX to assess the effectiveness of 2,4-D choline + glyphosate on control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.), Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus L.), and kochia (Kochia scoparia L.) at three growth stages (3 to 5 cm, 10 to 15 cm, and 20 to 30 cm). Study Design: All trials were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Place and Duration of Study: Field experiments were conducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015 in Lubbock, TX at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center near Lubbock, TX. Methodology: Herbicide treatments consisted of a single postemergence application of 2,4-D choline + glyphosate at two rates, 2,4-D choline + glyphosate at two rates + glufosinate, 2,4-D choline + glyphosate + S-metolachlor, 2,4-D choline + glyphosate + acetochlor, 2,4-D choline + glufosinate, glyphosate, or glufosinate. Results: The greatest level of weed control for all three weed species was achieved at the 3 to 5 cm timing; however, weed size was most critical for Palmer amaranth and Russian-thistle compared to kochia. Averaged over all three years, Palmer amaranth control decreased from 93 to 74% when evaluated 21 days after treatment following applications that included 2,4-D choline when applied to plants 3 to 5 and 10 to 30 cm, respectively. For Russian-thistle, control decreased from 98 to 78% when evaluated 21 days after treatment following treatments that included 2,4-D choline when applied to plants 3 to 5 and 10 to 30 cm, respectively. For kochia, control decreased from 98 to 84% when evaluated 21 days after treatment following treatments that included 2,4-D choline when applied to plant 3 to 5 and 10 to 30 cm, respectively.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
Gary W. Marek ◽  
Thomas H. Marek ◽  
Steven R. Evett ◽  
Yong Chen ◽  
Kevin R. Heflin ◽  
...  

cftm ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 190058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bishwoyog Bhattarai ◽  
Sukhbir Singh ◽  
Charles P. West ◽  
Rupinder Saini

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document