Influence of Crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides) Densities on Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Yield

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney L. Farris ◽  
Don S. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Good Predictor ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Research Station ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Verbesina Encelioides

Field experiments were conducted at the Caddo Research Station near Ft. Cobb, OK and at the Agronomy Research Station near Perkins, OK to measure the effects of seven crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides) densities on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. The seven densities evaluated were 0 (the weed-free check), 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 2.4, and 3.2 weeds/m of row. Data collected consisted of dry weed biomass and peanut yields. Correlation between weed density and dry weed biomass, dry weed biomass and peanut yield (kg/ha), dry weed biomass and peanut yield loss (percentage of check), weed density and peanut yield (kg/ha), and weed density and peanut yield loss (percentage of check) were evaluated. For each weed/m of row, dry weed biomass increased by 0.34 kg/m row. Dry weed biomass was a good predictor of peanut yield. For each kilogram of dry weed biomass/ m row, a 1900-kg/ha or 46.3% reduction in peanut yield occurred. Weed density was also a good predictor of peanut yield. A 559-kg/ha reduction or 16% increase in peanut yield loss occurred for each weed/m row. Peanut yield was reduced approximately 50% when crownbeard density increased to 3.2 weeds/m row.

Influence of Broadleaf Weeds on Chlorothalonil Deposition, Foliar Disease Incidence, and Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Yield

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley S. Royal ◽  
Barry J. Brecke ◽  
Frederick M. Shokes ◽  
Daniel L. Colvin
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Foliar Disease ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Weed Plants

Field experiments were conducted at Jay and Marianna, FL in 1988 and 1989 to determine the effects of sicklepod, Florida beggarweed, and common cocklebur density on chlorothalonil deposition to peanut foliage, peanut foliar disease incidence, and peanut yield. At a density of four weed plants per 8 m of row, Florida beggarweed and sicklepod reduced chlorothalonil deposition on peanut foliage by 20%, while common cocklebur reduced fungicide deposition by 34%. At the same density, incidence of the foliar diseases early leaf spot and late leaf spot increased 10% with Florida beggarweed, 14% with sicklepod, and 20% with common cocklebur compared with weed-free peanut. The predicted peanut yield loss from a weed density of four plants per 8 m was 16 to 19% for Florida beggarweed, 23 to 25% for sicklepod, and 31 to 39% for common cocklebur. Weed biomass increased with increasing weed density.

The critical weed-free period in glyphosate-resistant soybean in Ontario is similar to previous estimates using glyphosate-susceptible soybean

2019 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-443
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
Robert E. Nurse ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Peter H. Sikkema
Keyword(s):  
Growth Stage ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Beginning Of Flowering ◽  
Minimal Reduction

A study consisting of 13 field experiments was conducted during 2014–2016 in southwestern Ontario and southcentral Nebraska (Clay Center) to determine the effect of late-emerging weeds on the yield of glyphosate-resistant soybean. Soybean was maintained weed-free with glyphosate (900 g ae ha−1) up to the VC (cotyledon), V1 (first trifoliate), V2 (second trifoliate), V3 (third trifoliate), V4 (fourth trifoliate), and R1 (beginning of flowering) growth stages, after which weeds were allowed to naturally infest the soybean plots. The total weed density was reduced to 24%, 63%, 67%, 72%, 76%, and 92% in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) when soybean was maintained weed-free up to the VC, V1, V2, V3, V4, and R1 soybean growth stages, respectively. The total weed biomass was reduced by 33%, 82%, 95%, 97%, 97%, and 100% in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) and 28%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% in Environment 2 (Clay Center) when soybean was maintained weed-free up to the VC, V1, V2, V3, V4, and R1 stages, respectively. The critical weed-free periods for a 2.5%, 5%, and 10% yield loss in soybean were the V1–V2, VC–V1, and VC–V1 soybean stages in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) and V2–V3, V2–V3, and V1–V2 soybean stages in Environment 2 (Clay Center), respectively. For the weed species evaluated, there was a minimal reduction in weed biomass (5% or less) when soybean was maintained weed-free beyond the V3 soybean growth stage. These results shows that soybean must be maintained weed-free up to the V3 growth stage to minimize yield loss due to weed interference.

Influence of a Rye Cover Crop on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Cotton

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 346-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas E. Korres ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Presence And Absence ◽  
Weed Removal

Cover crops are becoming increasingly common in cotton as a result of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth; hence, a field experiment was conducted in 2009 and 2010 in Marianna, AR, with a rye cover crop used to determine its effects on the critical period for weed control in cotton. Throughout most of the growing season, weed biomass in the presence of a rye cover crop was lesser than that in the absence of a rye cover crop. In 2009, in weeks 2 through 7 after planting, weed biomass was reduced at least twofold in the presence of a rye cover compared with the absence of rye. In 2009, in both presence and absence of a rye cover crop, weed removal needed to begin before weed biomass was 150 g m−2, or approximately 4 wk after planting, to prevent yield loss > 5%. Weed density was less in 2010 than in 2009, so weed removal was not required until 7 wk after planting, at which point weed biomass values were 175 and 385 g m−2in the presence and absence of a cover crop, respectively.

Validation of HERB for Use in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony D. White ◽  
Harold D. Coble
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Decision Model ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Validation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Competitive Index ◽  
Peanut Production

Researchers are currently developing predictive weed management models to aid producers in maintaining or improving economic profitability of peanut production while minimizing herbicide inputs and reducing environmental impact. HERB (Version 2.1.P), a computer decision model, has recently been developed for peanut and is now awaiting validation of weed control decisions before being released to the public. Field validation trials in 1994 and 1995 indicate that the current competitive index parameters in the HERB model are invalid, and statistically estimated competitive indices were generated. Estimating new parameters improvedR2values from 0.37 to 0.61. New competitive index parameters allow the HERB model to more accurately predict the level of yield loss at a given weed density.

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Response to Lactofen at Various Postemergence Timings1

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Dotray ◽  
W. J. Grichar ◽  
T. A. Baughman ◽  
E. P. Prostko ◽  
T. L. Grey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
High Plains ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Texas High Plains ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea L ◽  
Seed Fill ◽  
Preharvest Interval

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.

Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Weed Science ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt W. Rowland ◽  
Don S. Murray ◽  
Laval M. Verhalen
Keyword(s):  
Linear Model ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Lint Yield ◽  
Cotton Lint ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Fiber Properties ◽  
Fiber Fineness ◽  
Cotton Lint Yield

Four field experiments were conducted in Oklahoma to measure full-season Palmer amaranth interference on cotton lint yield and fiber properties. Density of the weed ranged from 0 to 12 plants 10 m−1of row. Cotton lint yield vs. weed density fit a linear model for densities ⩽ 8 weeds row−1at Perkins and Chickasha in 1996 and at Alms in 1997. At Perkins in 1997, all densities fit a linear model. For each increase of 1 weed row−1, lint yield reductions were 62 kg ha−1(or 10.7%) and 58 kg ha−1(or 11.5%) at Perkins and at Chickasha in 1996, respectively. At Perkins and Alms in 1997, for each 1 weed row−1, lint yield was reduced 71 kg ha−1(or 5.9%) and 112 kg ha−1(or 8.7%), respectively. Lint yield vs. end-of-season weed volume fit a linear model except at Alms in 1997. For each increase of 1 m3of weed plot−1, cotton lint yield in 1996 was reduced by 1.6 and 1.5% at Perkins and Chickasha, respectively. In 1997 at Perkins and Altus (⩽ 6 weeds), each increase of 1 m3of weed plot−1reduced lint yield 1.6 and 2.3%, respectively. Lint yield vs. end-of-season weed biomass fit a linear model in all four experiments. Lint yield was reduced 5.2 to 9.3% for each increase of 1 kg of weed biomass plot−1. Fiber analyses revealed significant differences for micronaire (fiber fineness) among weed densities in two experiments, marginal significance in a third, and none in a fourth. An intermediate number of weeds often resulted in improved fiber micronaires in these environments. No other fiber properties were influenced by weed density.

Time of Removal of Crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides) on Peanut Yield

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney L. Farris ◽  
Cody J. Gray ◽  
Don S. Murray ◽  
Laval M. Verhalen
Keyword(s):  
Natural Population ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Weed Growth ◽  
Poor Predictor ◽  
Verbesina Encelioides ◽  
Shell Peanut ◽  
Weed Removal

Field experiments were conducted in southwestern Oklahoma near Colony in 2000 and near Ft. Cobb in 2001 to quantify the effect of time of removal of a natural population of crownbeard on peanut yield. Weed densities and dry weed weights were measured at eight weed-removal times, and in-shell peanut yields were determined at harvest. Crownbeard was removed at 0 (the weed-free check), 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 wk (full season) after crop emergence (WAE). Weed density was a poor predictor for dry weed weight and peanut yield; however, dry weed weight and time of removal were good predictors for peanut yield. Weed growth was minimal up to 4 WAE and increased linearly after that time. For each week of weed growth, a 0.52 kg/plot increase in dry weed weight was measured. Peanut yield decreased linearly because of crownbeard competition. For each kilogram per plot increase in dry weed weight, a 129 kg/ha or 5.1% peanut yield reduction took place. For each week of weed interference, a 75 kg/ha or 2.8% peanut yield reduction occurred. Crownbeard removal by or before 4 WAE will minimize losses in peanut yield because of interference.

Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Simulated 2,4-D and Dicamba Drift

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Everitt ◽  
J. Wayne Keeling
Keyword(s):  
Good Predictor ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Lint Yield ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Cotton Lint ◽  
Late Season ◽  
Crop Injury

Field experiments were conducted in Hale Co., TX, in 2005 and 2006 to determine the effects of 2,4-D amine and dicamba applied at varying rates and growth stages on cotton growth and yield, and to correlate cotton injury levels and lint yield reductions. Dicamba or 2,4-D amine was applied at four growth stages including cotyledon to two-leaf, four- to five-leaf, pinhead square, and early bloom. Dicamba and 2,4-D amine were applied at 1/2, 1/20, 1/200, and 1/2000 of the recommended use rate. Crop injury was recorded at 14 days after treatments and late-season, and cotton lint yields were determined. Across all growth stages, 2,4-D caused more crop injury and yield loss than dicamba. Cotton lint was reduced more by later applications (especially pinhead square) and injury underestimated yield loss with 2,4-D. Visual estimates of injury overestimated yield loss when 2,4-D or dicamba was applied early (cotyledon to two leaf) and was not a good predictor of yield loss.

scholarly journals Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference with corn across the northcentral United States

Weed Science ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 1034-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Fischer ◽  
R. Gordon Harvey ◽  
Thomas T. Bauman ◽  
Sam Phillips ◽  
Stephen E. Hart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Common Lambsquarters ◽  
Weed Density

Variation in crop–weed interference relationships has been shown for a number of crop–weed mixtures and may have an important influence on weed management decision-making. Field experiments were conducted at seven locations over 2 yr to evaluate variation in common lambsquarters interference in field corn and whether a single set of model parameters could be used to estimate corn grain yield loss throughout the northcentral United States. Two coefficients (IandA) of a rectangular hyperbola were estimated for each data set using nonlinear regression analysis. TheIcoefficient represents corn yield loss as weed density approaches zero, andArepresents maximum percent yield loss. Estimates of both coefficients varied between years at Wisconsin, andIvaried between years at Michigan. When locations with similar sample variances were combined, estimates of bothIandAvaried. Common lambsquarters interference caused the greatest corn yield reduction in Michigan (100%) and had the least effect in Minnesota, Nebraska, and Indiana (0% yield loss). Variation inIandAparameters resulted in variation in estimates of a single-year economic threshold (0.32 to 4.17 plants m−1of row). Results of this study fail to support the use of a common yield loss–weed density function for all locations.

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Yield Response to Mechanical and Chemical Weed Control Systems

Weed Science ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles E. Snipes ◽  
Thomas C. Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Surface Coverage ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Seed Cotton ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Prickly Sida

Cotton yield response was evaluated in 1987, 1988, and 1989 when weeds were managed with preemergence fluometuron [none (0%), band (50%), or broadcast (100%) surface coverage], cultivation (none, one, two, or three times), and postdirected fluometuron + MSMA. Weed densities (primarily prickly sida, morningglories, and hemp sesbania) varied widely among years and were directly related to early season rainfall. Postdirected herbicide application or cultivation(s) had little effect on weed density. The use of a banded fluometuron application reduced weed biomass 28 to 47%. A further decrease was observed when preemergence fluometuron was increased from banded to broadcast coverage. Seed cotton yields were low with no preemergence fluometuron. Banded fluometuron and at least one cultivation had yields similar to broadcast fluometuron only. Cotton yields were related to weed density and weed biomass in a hyperbolic relationship. Low weed densities caused more yield loss per unit weed density than higher densities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document