Horse Purslane (Trianthema Portulacastrum), Smellmelon (Cucumis Melo), and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri) Control in Peanut with Postemergence Herbicides

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 688-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Grichar
Keyword(s):  
Cucumis Melo ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Trianthema Portulacastrum ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

scholarly journals Herbicide Systems for Control of Horse Purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.), Smellmelon (Cucumis melo L.), and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) in Peanut

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Grichar
Keyword(s):  
Cucumis Melo ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Growing Seasons ◽  
Trianthema Portulacastrum ◽  
Untreated Check ◽  
Control Horse ◽  
Cucumis Melo L

Abstract Field studies were conducted during the 2003 through 2005 growing seasons to evaluate soil-applied herbicides alone or in combination with postemergence (POST) herbicides for horse purslane, smellmelon, and Palmer amaranth control in peanut. Pendimethalin alone applied preplant incorporated (PPI) failed to control any of the three weeds (< 70% control). Pendimethalin in combination with diclosulam, followed by imazethapyr applied preemergence (PRE), or followed by either acifluorfen or imazapic applied postemergence (POST) controlled all three weed species at least 80%. The soil-applied herbicides flumioxazin, imazethapyr, S-metolachlor, or dimethenamid applied alone failed to control horse purslane and smellmelon (< 75%). Pendimethalin controlled Palmer amaranth less than 42% while flumioxazin at 0.07 kg/ha or dimethenamid at 1.12 kg/ha controlled Palmer amaranth less than 75%. Imazethapyr alone or pendimethalin applied PPI followed by imazethapyr applied PRE or imazapic applied POST controlled Palmer amaranth at least 99%. Pendimethalin applied PPI was present in all herbicide systems that yielded greater than the untreated check. In addition, 80% or greater control of at least 2 of 3 weed species resulted in the highest yields, with the exception of pendimethalin followed by acifluorfen.

Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with Postemergence Herbicides

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 739-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Grichar
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Good Control ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Adequate Control ◽  
Ac 263,222 ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

Seven postemergence (POST) herbicides were evaluated alone and in various mixtures for Palmer amaranth control in peanut from 1992 through 1994. AC 263,222 at rates as low as 0.04 kg/ha controlled ≥ 95% Palmer amaranth. Imazethapyr at rates of 0.05 to 0.07 kg/ha controlled ≥ 90% Palmer amaranth in 2 of 3 yr. Acifluorfen alone or in combination with bentazon or 2,4-DB and lactofen alone controlled > 90% Palmer amaranth in 2 of 3 yr. Bentazon or pyridate failed to provide adequate control (≤ 60%), while 2,4-DB provided good control (80%) in only 1 of 3 yr.

Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Regrowth Following Failed Applications of Glufosinate and Fomesafen

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Jesse A. Haarmann ◽  
Bryan G. Young ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Bare Ground ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Ground Field ◽  
Initial Application ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Herbicide Treatment ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

Abstract Rapid vegetative growth and adverse application conditions are common factors leading to the failure of postemergence herbicides on Palmer amaranth. A sequential herbicide application, or respray, is often necessary to control weeds that have survived the initial herbicide application to protect crop yield and minimize weed seed production. The optimum timing after the initial application and the most effective herbicide for control of Palmer amaranth has not been characterized. The objectives of these experiments were to determine the optimum herbicide for treating Palmer amaranth regrowth, the optimum timing for each of those herbicides, and how the initial failed herbicide might affect efficacy of a second herbicide application. Bare ground field experiments were performed in 2017 and 2018 in which glufosinate or fomesafen herbicide failure was induced on Palmer amaranth plants that were 30 cm in height. Respray treatments of glufosinate, fomesafen, lactofen, 2,4-D, and dicamba were applied once at timings of 4 to 5 days, 7 days, or 11 days after the initial spray application. Nearly all herbicide treatment and timing combinations increased control by at least 13 percentage points compared to no respray herbicide treatment. Regardless of initial herbicide, glufosinate applied as a respray treatment was the most consistent and efficacious with up to 97% control. The specific herbicide used in the second application impacted final weed control more so than timing of the respray application. For instance, control by glufosinate respray treatments was 10 to 18 percentage points greater than control from lactofen respray treatments, whereas control decreased by 3 percentage points when respray applications of any herbicide were made 11 days after initial application of glufosinate compared to 4 to 5 and 7 days after initial application of glufosinate. In the event of failure to control Palmer amaranth with glufosinate or fomesafen, glufosinate should be applied in order to maximize control.

Safety and efficacy of linuron with or without an adjuvant or S-metolachlor for POST control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Levi D. Moore ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
Ramon G. Leon ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nonionic Surfactant ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Total Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Foliar Injury ◽  
Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

Abstract Field studies were conducted to evaluate linuron for POST control of Palmer amaranth in sweetpotato to minimize reliance on protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides. Treatments were arranged in a two by four factorial where the first factor consisted of two rates of linuron (420 and 700 g ai ha−1), and the second factor consisted of linuron applied alone or in combinations of linuron plus a nonionic surfactant (NIS) (0.5% v/v), linuron plus S-metolachlor (800 g ai ha−1), or linuron plus NIS plus S-metolachlor. In addition, S-metolachlor alone and nontreated weedy and weed-free checks were included for comparison. Treatments were applied to ‘Covington’ sweetpotato 8 d after transplanting (DAP). S-metolachlor alone provided poor Palmer amaranth control because emergence had occurred at applications. All treatments that included linuron resulted in at least 98 and 91% Palmer amaranth control 1 and 2 wk after treatment (WAT), respectively. Including NIS with linuron did not increase Palmer amaranth control compared to linuron alone, but increased sweetpotato injury and subsequently decreased total sweetpotato yield by 25%. Including S-metolachlor with linuron resulted in the greatest Palmer amaranth control 4 WAT, but increased crop foliar injury to 36% 1 WAT compared to 17% foliar injury from linuron alone. Marketable and total sweetpotato yield was similar between linuron alone and linuron plus S-metolachlor or S-metolachlor plus NIS treatments, though all treatments resulted in at least 39% less total yield than the weed-free check resulting from herbicide injury and/or Palmer amaranth competition. Because of the excellent POST Palmer amaranth control from linuron 1 WAT, a system including linuron applied 7 DAP followed by S-metolachlor applied 14 DAP could help to extend residual Palmer amaranth control further into the critical period of weed control while minimizing sweetpotato injury.

scholarly journals Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and sugarbeet to desmedipham and phenmedipham

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Clint W. Beiermann ◽  
Cody F. Creech ◽  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Robert Harveson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Selectivity Index ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Greenhouse Experiment ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
True Leaf ◽  
Cotyledon Stage ◽  
Equivalent Rate ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
High Level

Abstract A prepackaged mixture of desmedipham + phenmedipham was previously labeled for control of Amaranthus spp. in sugarbeet. Currently, there are no effective POST herbicide options to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet growers are interested in using desmedipham + phenmedipham to control escaped Palmer amaranth. In 2019, a greenhouse experiment was initiated near Scottsbluff, NE, to determine the selectivity of desmedipham and phenmedipham between Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet. Three populations of Palmer amaranth and four sugarbeet hybrids were evaluated. Herbicide treatments consisted of desmedipham and phenmedipham applied singly or as mixtures at an equivalent rate. Herbicides were applied when Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet were at the cotyledon stage, or two true-leaf sugarbeet stage and when Palmer amaranth was 7 cm tall. The selectivity indices for desmedipham, phenmedipham, and desmedipham + phenmedipham were 1.61, 2.47, and 3.05, respectively, at the cotyledon stage. At the two true-leaf application stage, the highest rates of desmedipham and phenmedipham were associated with low mortality rates in sugarbeet, resulting in a failed response of death. The highest rates of desmedipham + phenmedipham caused a death response of sugarbeet; the selectivity index was 2.15. Desmedipham treatments resulted in lower LD50 estimates for Palmer amaranth compared to phenmedipham, indicating that desmedipham can provide greater levels of control for Palmer amaranth. However, desmedipham also caused greater injury in sugarbeet, producing lower LD50 estimates compared to phenmedipham. Desmedipham + phenmedipham provided 90% or greater control of cotyledon-size Palmer amaranth at a labeled rate but also caused high levels of sugarbeet injury. Neither desmedipham, phenmedipham, nor desmedipham + phenmedipham was able to control 7-cm tall Palmer amaranth at previously labeled rates. Results indicate that desmedipham + phenmedipham can only control Palmer amaranth if applied at the cotyledon stage and a high level of sugarbeet injury is acceptable.

scholarly journals Influence of Selected Fungicides on Efficacy of Clethodim and 2,4-DB

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurinderbir S. Chahal ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Barbara B. Shew ◽  
Rick L. Brandenburg ◽  
James D. Burton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Sampling Interval ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Affect Control ◽  
Solution Preparation ◽  
Positive Correlations ◽  
Sampling Times ◽  
Large Crabgrass

Abstract A range of fungicides and herbicides can be applied to control pests and optimize peanut yield. Experiments were conducted in North Carolina to define biological and physicochemical interactions when clethodim and 2,4-DB were applied alone or with selected fungicides. Pyraclostrobin consistently reduced large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] control by clethodim. Chlorothalonil and tebuconazole plus trifloxystrobin reduced large crabgrass control by clethodim in two of four experiments while prothioconazole plus tebuconazole and flutriafol did not affect control. Palmer amaranth [Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats] control by 2,4-DB was not affected by these fungicides. Although differences in spray solution pH were noted among mixtures of clethodim plus crop oil concentrate or 2,4-DB and fungicides, the range of pH was 4.40 to 4.92 and 6.72 to 7.20, respectively, across sampling times of 0, 6, 24, and 72 h after solution preparation. Permanent precipitates were formed when clethodim, crop oil concentrate, and chlorothalonil were co-applied at each sampling interval. Permanent precipitates were not observed when clethodim and crop oil concentrate were included with other fungicides or when 2,4-DB was mixed with fungicides. Significant positive correlations were noted for Palmer amaranth control by 2,4-DB and solution pH but not for clethodim and solution pH.

Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition

Weed Science ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael A. Massinga ◽  
Randall S. Currie ◽  
Todd P. Trooien
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Light Interception ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri

Susceptibility of palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri ) accessions in north carolina to Atrazine, Dicamba, S ‐metolachlor, and 2,4‐D

cftm ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Levi D. Moore ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Michael D. Boyette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document