Premium
INCORPORATED VERSUS SUBSURFACE VERNOLATE FOR WEED CONTROL TN PEANUTS *
Author(s) -
HAUSER E. W.,
SAMPLES L. E.,
PARHAM S. A.
Publication year - 1969
Publication title -
weed research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.693
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1365-3180
pISSN - 0043-1737
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1969.tb01471.x
Subject(s) - arachis hypogaea , agronomy , weed , weed control , germination , environmental science , horticulture , biology
Summary. Under dry field conditions, vernolate (S‐propyl dipropylthiocarbamate) incorporated by conventional methods controlled less yellow nutsedge (Cyperusesculentus L.) and injuied peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L., groundnuts) more than when injected in lines under the soil or subsurface‐applied through sweep applicators. In glasshouse studies, vernolate eliminated production of new nutsedge tubers if it was applied below the soil surface either 1 in. above or 1 in. below the parent tuber. Method of placement was less critical in determining control of most annual weeds. When averaged over two soil types and 2 years, peanuts yielded 14% more after subsurface applications than after incorporated treatments of vernolate. In comparison with the optimum subsurface placement, the yield from incorporation was significantly lower in three of four field studies, the reduced yields probably resulting from a combination of herbicide injury and poor weed control. Factors affecting the distribution of vernolate vapours (such as method of placement, soil type and amount of rainfall after treatment) apparently determine the differential toxicity of this herbicide. Neither market quality nor germination of peanut seed was adversely affected by vernolate treatment.