ARTICLES

Peanut Response to Ethalfluralin, Pendimethalin, and Trifluralin Preplant Incorporated¹

Authors: P. A. Dotray , J. W. Keeling , W. J. Grichar , E. P. Prostko , R. G. Lemon , J. D. Everrit

  • Peanut Response to Ethalfluralin, Pendimethalin, and Trifluralin Preplant Incorporated¹

    ARTICLES

    Peanut Response to Ethalfluralin, Pendimethalin, and Trifluralin Preplant Incorporated¹

    Authors: , , , , ,

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Yoakum (south Texas) in 1996 and 1997, Comanche (central Texas) in 1998, and Lamesa (west Texas) in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate peanut tolerance to dinitroaniline herbicides. At Lamesa, ethalfluralin at 0.63 or 0.84 kgha, pendimethalin at 0.56 or 0.84 kg/ha, and trifluralin at 0.56 or 0.71 kg/ha were applied preplant incorporated (PPI), and at Yoakum and Comanche, ethalfluralin and pendimethalin were applied PPI at 0.67, 0.84, 1.12, and 1.68 kg/ha. There were no differences in stand establishment or yield for any treatment at Lamesa, Comanche, or Yoakum. Similarly, canopy stature was not affected at Lamesa nor was grade affected at Comanche or Yoakum. At Lamesa, yields by herbicide averaged across rates, incorporation methods, and years ranged from 4530 to 4920 kg/ha; by rate averaged across herbicides, incorporation methods, and years was 4600 to 4750 kg/ha; and by incorporation method averaged across herbicides, rates, and years was 4580 to 4770 kg/ha. At Yoakum and Comanche, yields by herbicide were 2640 and 2950 kg/ha, respectively, when averaged across rates; and by rate they ranged from 2630 to 2990 kg/ha when averaged across herbicides. These data indicate peanut has tolerance (safety) to ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin applied PPI in Texas.

Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L, Groundnut, herbicide injury, peanut injury, yield

How to Cite:

Dotray, P. & Keeling, J. & Grichar, W. & Prostko, E. & Lemon, R. & Everrit, J., (2003) “Peanut Response to Ethalfluralin, Pendimethalin, and Trifluralin Preplant Incorporated¹”, Peanut Science 30(1), p.34-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/pnut.30.1.0007

13 Views

2 Downloads

Published on
01 Jan 2003
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Contribution of the Dept. of Plant and Soil Science, College of Agric. Sciences and Natural Resources, Texas Tech Univ. Publication No. T-5528 and approved for publication by the Director of the Texas Agric. Exp. Sta., Lubbock, TX.