26 PEANUT SCIENCE

Imazethapyr for BroadleafWeed Control in Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) John W. Wilcut*, F. Robert Walls, Jr., and David N. Horton!

ABSTRACT yielded 4110 kg ha-l, PRE =3860 kg ha', GC =3680 kg ha-l, and Field experiments were conducted at the Tidewater Agric. POT = 3370 kg ha", Several imazethapyr systems provided net Exp. Station, Suffolk,VAin 1988 and 1989to evaluate imazethapyr returns equivalent to the standard. Com grown the followingyear [(±J-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1fi­ was not injured by any imazethapyr treatment to peanuts the imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridine-carboxylic acid]for broadleaf previous year. weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Imazethapyr was applied preplant-incorporated (PPI), preemergence (PRE), at ground-cracking (GC), and postemergence (POT) at rates of Key Words. Economic analysis, net returns, Anoda cristata, 0.036, 0.071, or 0.105 kg ai ha'. Several sequential imazathapyr Eclipta prostrata, Sida spinosa, Ipomoea spp. systems were also included. The standard of pendimethalin (N­ ethylpropyl)-3, 4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine) PPI, metolachlor (2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)- N-(2-methoxy­ 1-methylethyl)acetamide) PRE, and acifluorfen (5-[2-chloro-4­ Annual broadleafweed control in peanuts relies almost (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid) plus bentazon (3­ exclusively on timely applications ofpostemergence-active (1-methyethyl)-(lfi)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3fi)-one 2, 2­ herbicides (4). Most herbicides registered for use in peanuts dioxide) POT wasincluded for comparative purposes. Imazethapyr do not provide residual control of broadleafweeds, and as a applied either PPI or PRE at 0.071 or 0.105 kg ha' provided >90% spurred anoda (Anoda cristata (L.) Sehlecht.), control and >96% result multiple applications are frequently required for prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.), control. Eclipta (Eclipta prostrata profitable crop production (4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). L.) control was 95% when imazathapyr was applied PRE at 0.105 Cultivation can be used to control escape weed problems kg ha'. Greater than 90% annual morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) (15, 16), however, many growers are reluctant to cultivate control was only achieved with imazethapyr applied PPI or PRE at because of increased disease incidence resulting from soil 0.105kgha'. The standard provided complete control ofeclipta,and 51%,92%, and 94% control of spurred anoda (Anoda cristata (L.) moved onto the peanutvines (4, 11). Thus, cultivation is not Schlecht.), pricklysida (Sidaspinosa L.),and annual morningglories, recommendedin fields with a history of disease problems (4, respectively. Several imazethapyr systems yielded equivalent to 11). the standard. Averaged across all rates, imazathapyr applied PPI Imazethapyr is a herbicide recently registered for use in soybeans that provides broad spectrum broadleaf weed control (14). Imazethapyr is also being investigated for 'For, Asst. Prof., Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Polytechnic Inst. potential use in peanuts (13). To date, very little published & State Univ., Suffolk, VA 23437, Res. Sci., American Cyanamid Corp., data exists for imazethapyr evaluation in Virginia (13) or Goldsboro, NC 27530, and Res. Agric. Sci., Tidewater Agric. Exp. Stn. Current address of senior author: Dep. Agronomy, Box748, Coastal Plain elsewhere. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793-0748. Economic assessment of weed management systems is 2X-77 (a mixture of alkylaryl polyoxyethylene glycols, free fatty acids, essential information for producers to maximize profits (3). and isopropanol). Valent USA Corp., P. O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA By using a multidisciplinary approach, weed research 94596-8025. 3Storm® (a mixture of 159 g acifluorfen and 320 g bentazon VI). BASF encompasing both herbicide efficacy and economic Corp., 100 Cherry Hill Rd., Parsippany, NJ 07054. profitability can be examined (3,15,16,17,18).This approach 4Agridex (a mixture of paraffin base petroleum oil, polyoxyethylate identifies efficacious as well as cost effective weed polyol fatty acid ester and polyol fatty ester). Helena Chern. Co., 5100 management systems that producers are more likely to Poplar St., Memphis, TN 38137. sH. P. Wilson, VPI & SU, Painter, VA;A. C. York, North Carolina State adopt. Univ., Raleigh, NC; personal communication. The objectives of this research were: 1) to evaluate the *Corresponding author. efficacy ofimazethapyr rates and methods ofapplication for

Peanut Science (1991) 18:26-30 IMAZETHAPYR FOR WEED CONTROL 27 annual broadleafweedcontrol, 2) to determinethe resulting including drying and hauling, and general overhead cost. A net return to peanut yield, and 3) to evaluate economic net returns for land, overhead, and management was calculated for each plot as the weed control with imazethapyr when used in peanut difference betweenthe gross receipts and the sum ofvariable and ownership costs. Gross receipts were calculated for the sale of peanuts at $650 for production systems in Virginia. 1000 kg in 1988 and $685 for 1000 kg in 1989. A sample of peanuts from each replication of a treatment was shelled, Materials and Methods combined, and graded to determine percentage (wt/wt) of sound mature Experiments were conducted in 1988 and 1989 at the Tidewater kernels and soundsplit kernels (7). Visual estimtes of weed control, peanut Agricultural Experiment Station, Suffolk, VA,on a Eunola fine loamy sand yield, and net returns were subjected to analysis of variance, and means (Aquic Hapludults). The area was naturally infested with fall panicum were compared with appropriate Fisher's Protected Least Significant (Panicum dichotomiflorum Mich.), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis Difference (LSD) Test at the 5% level of probability for all data except (L.) Scop.), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht.), prickly sida eclipta (10% level of probaility). There were no treatment by year (Sida spinosa L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), interactions; consequently data were combined for presentation. eclipta (Eclipta prostrata L.), and a morningglory complex consisting of entireleaf (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray), ivyleaf (Ipomoea Results and Discussion hederaceae (L.) [acq.), tall (Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth), and pitted (Ipomoea lacunosa L.) morningglory. These weed species are some of the Weed Control more common and difficult to control weeds for Virginia and North Pendimethalin applied PPI provided at least 96% control Carolina peanut producers (8). The experimental area was different each offall panicum and large crabgrass (data not shown) with no year due to crop rotation requirements. Soil organic matter and pH was differences between weed management systems. 1.7% and 5.9, respectively, in 1988, and 1.0% and 5.5 in 1989. Pendimethalin provided only 15% spurred anoda control Florigiant peanuts were planted at a rate of 112 kg ha', 5 cm deep in a well-prepared flat seedbed using conventional equipment. Individual (Table 1) and illustrated the lack of spurred anoda control plots were four rows, spaced 91 cm apart and 6.1 m long. Planting dates with soil-appllied herbicides currentlyregistered in peanuts were May 13, 1988 and may 17, 1989. (4). The standard ofpendimethalin PPI, metolachlor PRE, Preplant-incorporated (PPJ) herbicides were applied one day before and acifluorfen plus bentazon POT provided 80% early­ planting and incorporated 5 to 7 cm deep with two passes of a field cultivator equipped with two rolling baskets. All herbicides were applied season control (data not shown). Since spurred anoda seed as either PPI, preemergence (PRE), ground-cracking (GC), or germinate over an extended portion ofthe growing season postemergence (POT) applications. Ground-cracking is defined as the (authors observations), lateremergingweeds escape control. period between hypocotyl emergence and the appearance of the first true Asa result, thelate seasoncontrolfrom thestandarddecreased leaves (2). Postemergence treatments were applied 3 weeks after GC. to 51%. Weeds were in the cotyledonto two-leafstage at the time of GC applications, and in the two- to six-leaf growth stage for POT applications. Regardless ofapplication rate, spurred anodacontrolwas Imazethapyr GC and POT applications were applied with a nonionic greater than 90% with all PPI and PRE imazethapyr surfactant" at 0.25% (v/v) of the spray volume. Acifluorfen (5-[2-chloro-4­ applications or PPI + GC imazethapyrsequentials. Cracking (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid) plus bentazon (3-(1­ methylethyll-tl.Hjz, 1, 3-benzothiadizin-4(3H..)-one 2, 2-dioxide) was applied as a prepackage commercial mixture"and with a crop oilconcentrate" Table 1. Influence of herbicide systems on late-season spurred at 1.25% (v/v) of the spray volume. anoda control.a Pendimethalin (N-(I-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitro­ benzenamine) was applied PPI at 1.12 kg ai ha' to all plots except the Spurred anoda control weed-free and weedy checks. Herbicide Method of imazethapyr application Imazethapyr treatments consisted of a factorial arrangement of four methods of application; PPI, PRE, GC, or POT, and three rates; 0.036, system Rate PPI PRE GC PO~. 0.071, or 0.105 kg ai ha', for a total of twelve treatments. Additional (kg ha") (t) treatments were: imazethapyr applied PPI and again GC, 1) at 0.036 kg Imazethapyr 0.036 94 91 65 49 ha' each application; 2) at 0.036 and 0.071 kg ha' respectively, and 3) at 0.036 and 0.105 kg ha', respectively. The next systems consisted of Imazethapyr 0.071 92 100 88 43 pendimethalinPPI as previouslydescribed, orpendimethalin PPI followed Imazethapyr 0.105 100 100 86 83 by metolachlor (2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1­ Additional treatments methylethyl)acetamide)PRE at 2.24 kg ha' followed by a POT application of acifluorfen at 0.28 plus bentazon at 0.56 kg ha'. This system is commonly Imazethapyr 0.036 + 94 used by Virginia peanut growers. For comparative purposes, weedy and (PPI + GC) 0.036 weed-free checks were included. The latterwas maintained with biweekly Imazethapyr 0.036 + 100 handweedings. A randomized complete block design with three replications was used. (PPI + GC) 0.071 All herbicides were applied with a tractor-mounted sprayer that used Imazethapyr 0.036 + 100 compressed air at 220 kPa as the propellant, and delivered 187 L ha'. (PPI + cc) 0.105 Data collected included visual estimates of weed control by species, peanut yields, and grade. Visual estimates of weed control were taken Metolachlor (PRE), 2.2 51 early-, mid-, and late season using a scale of 0% (no control) to 100% acifluorfen (POT) 0.28 (complete control) based on population density and plant vigor. Peanuts + bentazon (POT) 0.56 were harvested from the center two rows of each plot using conventional equipment (22). Pendimethalin (PPI) 1.12 15 In 1989, com was planted in the 1988 experimental site as a field Weed-free 100 bioassay for imazethapyr residue carryover. Visual evaluations for com Weedy check o stunting and discoloration were made 30 days after planting and grain statistical analyses yields were harvested. Anenterprisebudgetwas preparedfor each plot using budgetsprepared LSD (Application method) by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service for peanut production. All LSD (Rate) 14 costs, with the exception of those usedfor weed control, were basedon this LSD (Any two means) 14 budget generator (9). Herbicide prices were based on an average cost quoted by three suppliers from the peanut-producing area in Virginia. The production costs included cultural and pest management procedures, aAIl treatments except the weedy and weed-free check received an equipment and labor, interest on operating capital, harvest operations application of pendimethalin PPI at 1.12 kg ha", 28 PEANUT SCIENCE applications ofimazethapyrat the two higher rates provided Table 3. Influence of herbicide systems on late-season eclipta greater than 85% control. Postemergence applications of control."

0.036 and 0.071 kg ha' provided less than 50% control while Eclipta control the 0.105 kg ha' rate resulted in 83% spurred anoda control. Herbicide MethQd Qf imazethapyr applicatiQn Prickly sida control (Table 2) equivalent to the weed-free check was obtained with all PPI imazethapyr applications, system Rate PPI PRE GC POT imazethapyr PRE at the two higher rates, all PPI + CC (kg na") (%) sequential imazethapyr systems, and with the standard Imazethapyr 0.036 37 46 28 33 system. Prickly sida control with imazethapyr applied either Imazethapyr 0.071 67 75 70 41 PRE or PPI at 0.036 kg ha' was 84 to 89%, respectively, and Imazethapyr 0.105 83 95 72 35 equal to control from the standard. Postemergence AdditiQnal treatments applications were generally less effective than soil Imazethapyr 0.036 + 65 applications. Pendimethalin provided only 12% prickly sida (PPI + GC) 0.036 control. Imazethapyr 0.036 + 95

(PPI + GC) 0.071 Table 2. Influence ofherbicide systems on late-season prickly sida control." Imazethapyr 0.036 + 90 (PPI + GC) 0.105 Prickly sida cQntrQl MetQlachlor (PRE) 2.2 100 Herbicide MethQd Qf imazethapyr applicatiQn acifluorfen (POT) 0.28 + system Rate PPI PRE GC POT + bentazon (POT) 0.56 (kg ha"") (%) Pendimethalin (PPI) 1.12 26 Imazethapyr 0.036 89 84 74 51 Weed-free 100 Imazethapyr 0.071 99 96 79 69 Weedy check Imazethapyr 0.105 100 100 81 76 AdditiQnal treatments

Imaz.ethapyr 0.036 + 100 statistical analyses (PPI + GC) 0.036 LSD (Application method) 13

Imazethapyr 0.036 + 100 LSD (Rate) 12 (PPI + GC) 0.071 LSD (Any two means) 10

Imazethapyr 0.036 + 99 (PPI + GC) 0.105 "All treatments except the weedy and weed-free check received an

MetQlachlQr (PRE) 2.2, 92 application of pendimethalin PPI at 1.12 kg ha·'.

acifluQrfen (POT) 0.28 + + bentazQn (POT) 0.56 applications were generally less effective.

Pendimethalin (PPI) 1.12 12 Imazethapyr provided the best weed control with few exceptions when applied either PPI, PRE, or CC or asa Weed-free 100 sequential ofa PPI· followed by CC application. Weedy check o statistical analyses Postemergence applications of imazethapyr generally

LSD (ApplicatiQn methQd) 13 provided the least control. Cole et. al (5) reported that LSD (Rate) 12 imazethapyr tolerance was based on differential metablism between tolerant and susceptible species. They further LSD (Any tWQ means) 15 reportedthatthe amountofimazethapyrmetabolizedvaried with site ofuptake. Thus, metabolism and tolerance varied "All treatments except the weedy and weed-free check received an with method of application and may explain the observed eppl.Lcat.Lon or pendimethalin PPI at 1.12 kg ha-'. differences in field efficacy dependingon application method Eclipta control was 26% with pendimethalin applied PPI in this study. Other field research has reported similar (Table 3). Imazethapyr at 0.036 kg ha', regardless of finding". Soil applications ofimazethapyr have been shown application method, provided little improvement while to provide the best control of prickly sida (19), while imazethapyr applied PPI, PRE, or CC at 0.071 kg ha' postemergence applications provide the best control of provided67 to 75% control. Controlequivalent to theweed­ common cocklebur>. The activity of other translocated free check was obtained with imazethapyr applied PRE at herbicides has also been reported to be influenced by the 0.105 kg ha' and with sequential systems provided the CC site ofapplication (1,5,6, 10). application rate was at least 0.071 kg ha'. Postemergence Peanut yield applications provided no more than41% control, and no rate Yields equivalent to the weed-free checkyield of 4080 kg response was evident. The standard controlled eclipta ha'were obtainedwith the standard and with allimazethapyr completely. systems; the exceptions being imazethapyr applied POT at Pendimethalinprovided 17% momingglorycontrolwhile 0.036 kgha·1 (Table 5). However, the highest numerical yield the standardresultedin 94% control (Table4). Momingglory of 4700 kg ha' was obtained from imazethapyr applied control equivalent to the standard was provided with PPI sequentially at 0.036 kg ha' PPI and 0.071 kg ha' CC. Yields and PRE applications ofimazethapyr at the two higher rates equivalent to this system were obtained with the standard andwith allsequentialsystems. Postemergenceimazethapyr system, imazethapyr applied at 0.071 kgha' PPI, imazethapyr IMAZETHAPYR FOR WEED CONTROL 29

Table 4. Influence of herbicide systems on late-season morning­ Table 5. Influence of herbicide systems on peanut yield.a glory control.a Peanut yield Morninqglory control Herbicide Method of imazethapyr application Herbicide Method of imazethapyr application system Rate PPl PRE GC POT system Rate PPl GC POT PRE (kg ha- 1) (kg ha- 1) (kg ha- 1) (%) lmazethapyr 0.036 3950 3610 3650 3210 lmazethapyr 0.036 82 79 72 49 lmazethapyr 0.071 4240 3510 3600 3390 lmazethapyr 0.071 90 93 83 62 lmazethapyr 0.105 4150 4460 3790 3520 lmazethapyr 0.105 95 95 82 70 Additional treatments Additional treatments lmazethapyr 0.036 + 3720 lmazethapyr 0.036 + 94 (PPl + GC) 0.036 (PPI + GC) 0.036 lmazethapyr 0.036 + 4700 lmazethapyr 0.036 + 97 (PPl + GC) 0.071 (PPI + GC) 0.071 lmazethapyr 0.036 + 4080 lmazethapyr 0.036 + 96 (PPl + GC) 0.105 (PPI + GC) 0.105 Metolachlor (PRE) 2.2, 4300 Metolachlor (PRE) 2.2, 94 acifluorfen (POT) 0.28 + acifluorfen (POT) 0.28 + + bentazon (POT) 0.56

+ bentazon (POT) 0.56 Pendimethalin (PPl) 1.12 3260 Pendimethalin (PPl) 1.12 17 Weed-free 4080 Weed-free 100 Weedy check 1520 Weedy check 0 statistical analyses Statistical analyses

LSD (Application method) 14 LSD (Application method) 490 LSD (Rate) 11 LSD (Rate) 560

LSD (Any two means) 12 LSD (Any two means) 720

BAll treatments except the weedy and weed-free check received an BAll treatments except the weedy and weed-free check received an

application of pendimethalin PPl at 1.12 kg ha", application of pendimethalin PPI at 1.12 kg na",

at 0.105 ka ha' PPI or PRE, or from a sequential imazethapyr Table 6. Influence of herbicide systems on net returns." 1 system at 0.036 kg ha' PPI followed by 0.105 kg ha- GC. Net returns Peanuts treated with only pendimethalin PPI yielded 3260 Herbicide Method of imazethapyr application kg ha-' and reflect yield reduction from broadleaf weed system Rate PPl PRE GC POT competition and interference with peanuts. Imazethapyr at (kg ha- 1) ($ ha") 0.071 kg ha' PPI or 0.105 kg ha' PPI or PRE, imazethapyr lmazethapyr 0.036 889 701 425 485 PPI + GC at 0.036 and 0.071 or 0.105 kg ha', and the standard provided higher yields. Averaged across all rates, lmazethapyr 0.071 1163 718 784 572 yields with imazethapyr applied PPI, PRE, GC, and POT lmazethapyr 0.105 1071 1284 832 654 were 4110 kg ha', 3860 kg ha', 3680 kg ha', and 3370 kg Additional treatments ha', respectively. lmazethapyr 0.036 + 850 Imazethapyr carryover on corn (PPl + GC) 0.036 Therewere no visible symptoms ofimazethapyr injuryto lmazethapyr 0.036 + 1425 com grown a year after imazethapyr application (data not (PPl + GC) 0.071 shown). Grain yield was also unaffected by imazethapyr lmazethapyr 0.036 + 966

treatment. These findings are in agreement with other (PPl + GC) 0.105 research in Virginia (21) and Michigan (12). Metolachlor (PRE) 2.2, 1253 Net returns acifluorfen (POT) 0.28 + Net return data (Table 6) followed many of the same trends as the yield data. The greatest net returns were from + bentazon (POT) 0.56 1 Pendimethalin (PPl) 1.12 484 imazethapyr PPI (0.036 kg ha') plus GC (0.071 kg ha- ) at $1425 ha', imazethapyr applied at 0.105 kg ha' PRE ($1284 Weed-free ha'), and from the standard ($1253 ha"), Equivalent returns Weedy check -602 were also obtained from imazethapyr PPI at 0.071 kg ha' statistical analyses ($1163 ha'). The lowest net returns were from POT LSD (Application method) 240 imazethapyr systems. LSD (Rate) 265 Imazethapyr provided the best annual broadleafcontrol LSD (Any two means) 270 as a soil applied treatment with efficacy depending on application methodandspecies in question. Soilapplications BAll treatments except the weedy and weed-free check received an of imazethapyr generally provided yields and net returns application of pendimethalin PPl at 1.12 kg ha- 1• 30 PEANUT SCIENCE equivalentto the currentstandard. Imazethapyrwillprovide 11. Porter, D. M., D. H. Smith, and R. Rodriquez-Kabana. 1982. Peanut Virginia peanut producers with a cost-effective soil applied plant diseases. pp. 326410. in H. E. Pattee and C. T. Young (eds.), Peanut Science and Technology. Amer. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., herbicide that may reduce reliance upon postemergence Yoakum, TX 77995. applied herbicides for annual broadleafweed control. 12. Renner, K. A., W. F. Meggitt, and D. Penner. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazathapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to Literature Cited com (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78-83. 1. Baird, J. H., J. W. Wilcut, G. R. Wehtje, R. Dickerson, and S. Sharpe. 13. Walls, F. R., J. W. Wilcut, and A. C. York. 1990. Rate and application 1989. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of sulfometuron studies with imazethapyr in peanuts. Proc. Amer. peanut Res. Educ. centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiuroides) and bahiagrass (Paspalum Soc. 22: 58. (Abstr.) notatum). Weed Sci. 37:42-46. 14. Wang, T., L. L. Whatley, W. F. Cougleton, H. M. Hackworth, J. C. 2. Boote, K. J. 1982. Growth stages of peanut. Peanut Sci. 9:35-40. Dunn, andR. M. Waskins.1986. AC 263,499 Herbicide: Development 3. Bridges, D. C. and R. H. Walker. 1987. Economics of sicklepod Status. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:520. ( Abstr.) (Cassia obtusifolia) management. Weed Sci. 35:594-598. 15. Wilcut, J. W., G. R. Wehtje, and R. H. Walker. 1987. Economics of 4. Buchanan, G. A., D. S. Murray, and E. W. Hauser. 1983. Weeds and weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and their control in peanuts. pp. 206-249. in H. E. Pattee and C. T. Young cultivations. Weed Sci. 35:711-715. (eds.), Peanut Science andTechnology. Amer, Peanut Res. and Educ. 16. Wilcut, J. W., G. R. Wehtje, and M. G. Patterson. 1987. Economic Soc. Yoakum, TX 77995. assessment of weed control systems for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). 5. Cole, T.A., G. R. Wehtje,J. W. Wilcut,andT. V. Hicks. 1989. Behavior Weed Sci. 35:433-437. ofimazethapyrinsoybeans (Glycine max),peanuts(Arachis hypogaea) , 17. Wilcut,J. W., G. R., Wehtje, T.A.Cole, T. V.Hicks, and]. A. McGuire. and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:639-644. 1989. Postemergenceweedcontrolsystems withoutdinosebfor peanuts 6. Coupland, D., W. A. Taylor, andJ. C. Caseley. 1978. The effect of site (Arachis hypogaea) . . Weed Sci. 37:385-391. of application on the performance of glyphosate on Agropyron repens 18. Wilcut, J. W., andc.W. Swann. 1990. Timingof paraquat applications and barban, benzoylprop-ethyl and difenzoquat on Avena fatua. for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Weed Res. 18:123-128. Sci. 38:558-562. 7. Davidson, J. I., Jr., T. B. Whitaker, andJ. W. Dickens. 1982. Grading, 19. Wilcut, J. W., and F. R. Walls. 1990. Cracking and postemergence cleaning, storage, shelling, marketing of peanuts in the United States. herbicide combinations for weed control in Virginia peanuts. Proc. pp. 571-623. in H. E. Pattee and C. T. Young (eds.), Peanut Science Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 22: 58. (Abstr.) andTechnology. Amer. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX 20. Wilcut, J. W., and F. R. Walls. 1990. Herbicide combinations for weed 77995. control in peanuts. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 71. (Abstr.) 8. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed Survey-Southern States. Proc. South. 21. Wilcut, J. W., and F. R. Walls. 1990. Preplant and Postemergence Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408-420. herbicide combinations for weed control in soybeans. Proc. 9. Gallimore, G. G., G. H. Updike, and S. G. Stuart, III. 1988-1989. Crop Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 44:44. (Abstr.) enterprise cost analysis for southeast Virginia. Virginia Coop. Ext. 22. Young,J. H., N. K. Person,Jr.,J. O. Donald,andW. D. Mayfield. 1982. Serv., VPI & SUo Blacksburg, VA. Harvesting, curing and energyutilization. pp. 458485. in H. E. Pattee 10. Petersen, P. J., and B. A. Swisher. 1985. Absorption, translocation, and andC. T. Young (eds.), PeanutScience and Technology. Amer. Peanut metabolism of 14C-chlorsulfuron in Canada thistle (Cirsium aroense). Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX 77995. Weed Sci. 33:7-11. Accepted Feb. 8, 1991

Peanut Science (1991) 18:30-37