Submitted:
15 November 2024
Posted:
18 November 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description
2.2. Experimental setup
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Visual Injury
3.2. Weed Control
3.3. Plant Widths
3.4. Yield
4. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hammons, R.O.; Herman, D.; Stalker, H.T. Origin and early history of the peanut. In Peanut: Genetics, processing, and utilization. Eds H.T. Stalker and R. Wilson. AOCS Press: London, England, 2016: pp 1-26.
- Valentine, H. Remembering our past and how it affected our present and future. Peanut Sci. 2019, 46, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moretzsohn, M.C.; Hopkins, M.S.; Mitchell, S.E.; Kresovich, S.; Valls, J.F.M.; Ferreira, M.E. Genetic diversity of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and its wild relatives based on the analysis of hypervariable regions of the genome. BMC Plant Biology. 2004, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peterson, A.G. Peanuts: prices, production, and foreign trade since the Civil War. Economic Geography 1931, 7, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasad, P.V.; Kakani, V.G.; Upadhyaya, H.D. Growth and production of groundnuts. In Soils, plant growth and crop production- Vol. II. Ed. W. H. Verheye. EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd.; United Kingdom. 2010 pp 135-167.
- Royal, S.S.; Brecke, B.J.; Shokes, F.M.; Colvin, D.L. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chlorothalonil deposition, foliar disease incidence, and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. Weed Tech. 1997, 11, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcut, J.W.; York, A.C.; Wehtje, G.R. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci. 1994, 6, 177–205. [Google Scholar]
- Everman, W.J.; Burke, I.C.; Clewis, S.B.; Thomas, W.E.; Wilcut, J.W. Critical period of grass vs. broadleaf weed interference in peanut. Weed. Tech. 2008, 22, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anonymous. Valor SX herbicide label. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc Las Vegas, NV, USA. 2024. Accessed: Oct 31st, 2024. 2024 http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld3LL006.pdf.
- Shaner, D.L. Herbicide Handbook 10th edition. Weed Science Society of America. 2014. 810 East 10th Lawrence, KS, USA.
- Hurdle, N.L.; Grey, T.L.; Pilon, C.; Monfort, W.S.; Prostko, E.P. Peanut seed germination and radicle development response to direct exposure of flumioxazin across multiple temperatures. Peanut Sci. 2020, 47, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, A.J.; Wilcut, J.W.; Cranmer, JR. Flumioxazin preplant or post-directed application timing followed by irrigation at emergence or after post-directed spray treatment does not influence cotton yield. Weed Tech. 2004, 18, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NASS. National Agricultural Statistics Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 2024. Accessed: Oct 31st, 2024 Online at https://www.nass.usda.gov/index.php.
- Basinger, N.T.; Randell, T.M.; Prostko, E.P. Peanut response to flumioxazin and S-metolachlor under high moisture conditions. Peanut Sci. 2021, 48, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurdle, N.L.; Grey, T.L.; Pilon, C.; Monfort, W.S.; Shilling, D.G. Interaction of seedling germination, planting date, and flumioxazin on peanut physiology under irrigated conditions. Amer. J. Plant Phys. 2020, 11, 2012–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson III, W.C.; Prostko, E.P.; Mullinix Jr., B.G. Phytotoxicity of delayed applications of flumioxazin on peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Tech. 2006, 20, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, A.J.; Wilcut, J.W.; Cranmer, J.R. Physiological behavior of root-absorbed flumioxazin in peanut, ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 2004, 52, 718–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branch, W.D. Registration of ‘Georgia-16HO’. J Plant Registrations. 2017, 11, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anonymous. Thimet EZ Load label. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc Las Vegas, NV, USA. 2024. Accessed: Oct 31st, 2024. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldB7F005.pdf.
- Monfort, W.S.; Tubbs, R.S.; Virk, S.; Harris, G.; Porter, W.M. UGA peanut production agronomic quick reference guide. University of Georgia Extension. AP-118. Accessed Oct 31st 2024. 2021. https://site.extension.uga.edu/colquittag/files/2021/02/Peanut-2021-Agronomic-Reference-Guide-1.pdf.
- Prostko, E.P.; Abney, M.; Kemerait, R. UGA peanut production pest management quick reference guide. University of Georgia Extension. AP-118. Accessed Oct 31st 2024. 2021. https://site.extension.uga.edu/colquittag/files/2021/02/Peanut-2021-Agronomic-Reference-Guide-1.pdf.
- Blanchett, B.H.; Grey, T.L.; Prostko, E.P.; Vencill, W.K.; Webster, T.M. The effect of 2,4-dicholorphenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) on peanut when applied during vegetative growth stages. Peanut Sci. 2017, 44, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhari, S.; Jordan, D.L.; Grey, T.L.; Prostko, E.P.; Jennings, K.M. Weed control and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response to acetochlor alone and in combination with various herbicides. Peanut Sci. 2018, 45, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leon, R.G.; Mulvaney, M.J.; Tillman, B.L. Peanut cultivars differing in growth habit and canopy architecture respond similarly to weed interference. Peanut Sci. 2016, 43, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchanan, G.A.; Dickens, R.; Burns, E.R.; McCormick, R.M. Performance of herbicides for weed control in peanuts. Auburn University. Bulletin 399. 1970 Accessed: February 18th, 2022. https://aurora.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/11200/764/1581BULL.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
- Hagan, A.K.; Campbell, H.L.; Bowen, K. L Seeding rate and planting date impacts stand density, diseases, and yield of irrigated peanuts. Plant Health Research. 2015, 16, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephenson IV, D.O.; Spivey, T.A.; Deliberto, M.A., Jr.; Blouin, D.C.; Woolam, B.C.; Buck, T.B. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury, growth, and yield following low-dose flumioxazin postemergence applications. J of Cotton Sci. 2019, 23, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besançon, T.E.; Riar, R.; Heiniger, R.W.; Weisz, R.; Everman, W.J. Rate and timing effects of growth regulating herbicides applications on grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) growth and yield. Advances in Agriculture 2016, 9302507, Accessed Nov 1st 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephenson IV, D.O.; Spivey, T.A.; Deliberto Jr., M.A.; Blouin, D.C.; Woolam, B.C.; Buck, T.B. Effects of low-dose flumioxazin and metribuzin postemergence applications on soybean. Weed Tech. 2018, 33, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jursík, M.; Andr, J.; Holec, J.; Soukup, J. Efficacy and selectivity of post-emergent application of flumioxazin and oxyfluorfen in sunflower. Plant Soil Environ. 2011, 57, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askew, S.D.; J. W. Wilcut, and J. R. Cranmer.; Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Tech. 1999, 13, 594–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Main, C.L.; Ducar, J.T.; Whitty, E.B.; Macdonald, G.E. ; Response of three Runner-Type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin1. Weed Tech. 2003, 17, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Maximum Temperatureb | Minimum Temperatureb | Rainfallc | |||||
| Year | Month | Sumter | Tift | Sumter | Tift | Sumter | Tift |
| __________________________________°C_____________________________________ | _________cm_________ | ||||||
| 2020 | May | NA | 29.4 | NA | 19.9 | NA | 6.6 |
| June | 30.9 | 30.8 | 20.2 | 20.8 | 7.3 | 12.9 | |
| July | 32.8 | 33.7 | 21.8 | 22.3 | 9.7 | 4.7 | |
| Aug. | 32.7 | 33.3 | 21.8 | 22.5 | 16.3 | 11.6 | |
| Sept. | 28.4 | 29.4 | 19 | 20.1 | 16.8 | 13.3 | |
| Oct. | 26.6 | 28.3 | 14.8 | 17.3 | 7.3 | 1.4 | |
| Season | 30.3 | 30.8 | 19.5 | 20.5 | 57.4 | 50.5 | |
| 2021 | May | 30.2 | NA | 16.3 | NA | 0.3 | NA |
| June | 30.6 | 31.1 | 20.1 | 21.4 | 20.1 | 11.8 | |
| July | 31.4 | 31.7 | 21.4 | 22 | 14.4 | 20.7 | |
| Aug. | 31.6 | 31.9 | 21.8 | 22.5 | 18.6 | 14.9 | |
| Sept. | 29.3 | 30.4 | 18.2 | 19.2 | 14.3 | 9 | |
| Oct. | 27.1 | 27.8 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 10.6 | 5.1 | |
| Season | 30 | 30.6 | 19.1 | 20.4 | 78.3 | 61.5 | |
| 2022 | May | 29.9 | 31.6 | 17.4 | 19.3 | 11.2 | 0.2 |
| June | 33.8 | 34.2 | 21.3 | 21.8 | 5.1 | 9.9 | |
| July | 32.3 | 32.9 | 22.3 | 22.3 | 19.8 | 14.2 | |
| Aug. | 31.4 | 32.2 | 21.5 | 21.9 | 13.2 | 20.7 | |
| Sept. | 29.0 | 29.6 | 17.9 | 18.6 | 8.3 | 6.3 | |
| Oct. | 24.9 | 25.1 | 9.3 | 10.7 | 4.0 | 2.6 | |
| Season | 30.2 | 30.9 | 18.3 | 19.1 | 61.6 | 53.9 | |
|
a Temperature and rainfall data from http://www.weather.uga.edu/. b Average of daily values for time period listed. c Sum of daily values for each time period listed. | |||||||
| Timing | Rate | Sumter County | Tift County | |||||||||||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||
| DAP | g ai/ha | ______________________________________________________%________________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||
| 0 | 0a | 0 | c | 0 | d | 0 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | |
| 27 | 0 | c | 4 | cd | 0 | f | 0 | d | 1 | e | 0 | f | ||
| 54 | 0 | c | 5 | cd | 1 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | ||
| 107 | 1 | bc | 7 | cd | 1 | f | 0 | d | 3 | e | 1 | f | ||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | c | 0 | d | 0 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | |
| 27 | 0 | c | 6 | cd | 0 | f | 0 | cd | 0 | e | 0 | f | ||
| 54 | 1 | bc | 5 | cd | 0 | f | 1 | cd | 5 | e | 0 | f | ||
| 107 | 0 | c | 6 | cd | 3 | ef | 1 | cd | 30 | b-d | 1 | f | ||
| 5 | 0 | 0 | c | 0 | d | 0 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | |
| 27 | 1 | bc | 10 | a-d | 1 | f | 0 | cd | 3 | e | 0 | f | ||
| 54 | 0 | bc | 11 | a-d | 1 | f | 1 | cd | 6 | e | 3 | f | ||
| 107 | 0 | c | 11 | a-d | 5 | d-f | 1 | cd | 31 | b-d | 3 | f | ||
| 7 | 0 | 0 | c | 0 | d | 0 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | |
| 27 | 1 | bc | 4 | cd | 4 | d-f | 2 | cd | 16 | c-e | 2 | f | ||
| 54 | 0 | c | 7 | b-d | 4 | d-f | 2 | cd | 30 | cd | 3 | f | ||
| 107 | 2 | bc | 10 | a-d | 11 | c-e | 4 | cd | 51 | ab | 9 | e | ||
| 10 | 0 | 0 | c | 0 | d | 0 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | |
| 27 | 0 | c | 19 | a-c | 2 | f | 12 | bc | 12 | de | 15 | de | ||
| 54 | 4 | a-c | 25 | a | 6 | d-f | 20 | b | 36 | a-c | 24 | c | ||
| 107 | 3 | a-c | 23 | a-c | 20 | b | 40 | a | 52 | a | 40 | a | ||
| 14 | 0 | 0 | c | 0 | d | 0 | f | 0 | d | 0 | e | 0 | f | |
| 27 | 3 | a-c | 8 | b-d | 12 | b-d | 8 | cd | 11 | de | 14 | e | ||
| 54 | 5 | ab | 16 | a-d | 15 | bc | 22 | b | 18 | c-e | 20 | cd | ||
| 107 | 7 | a | 24 | ab | 28 | a | 37 | a | 20 | c-e | 33 | b | ||
|
aRate reflects the percentage of the full labelled application rate. 0= 0 g ai ha, 0.25= 27 g ai ha, 0.5= 54 g ai ha, 1= 107 g ai ha. bApplication time indicates days after planting (DAP) the herbicide application was made. cValues followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at the 5% probability level. Data were subjected to PROC GLIMMIX in SAS Studio 3.8 with means separated by Tukey’s HSD. Data were separated by year and location. | ||||||||||||||
| Timing | Rate | Sumter County | Tift County | |||||||||||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | --------- | 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||
| DAP | g ai/ha | ______________________________________________________%________________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||
| 0 | 0a | 0 | f | 0 | b | 0 | d | 0 | b | 0 | b | |||
| 27 | 21 | c-f | 67 | a | 86 | a-c | 77 | a | 90 | a | ||||
| 54 | 41 | a-e | 74 | a | 90 | a-c | 86 | a | 96 | a | ||||
| 107 | 71 | ab | 75 | a | 95 | a-c | 81 | a | 94 | a | ||||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | f | 0 | b | 0 | d | 0 | b | 0 | b | |||
| 27 | 38 | a-e | 82 | a | 77 | bc | 60 | a | 93 | a | ||||
| 54 | 43 | a-d | 75 | a | 76 | c | 91 | a | 97 | a | ||||
| 107 | 48 | a-c | 74 | a | 93 | a-c | 88 | a | 79 | a | ||||
| 5 | 0 | 0 | f | 0 | b | 0 | d | 0 | b | 0 | b | |||
| 27 | 34 | b-f | 70 | a | 94 | a-c | 82 | a | 80 | a | ||||
| 54 | 46 | a-c | 64 | a | 97 | a | 69 | a | 82 | a | ||||
| 107 | 48 | a-c | 76 | a | 97 | a | 88 | a | 96 | a | ||||
| 7 | 0 | 0 | f | 0 | b | 0 | d | 0 | b | 0 | b | |||
| 27 | 43 | a-d | 83 | a | 89 | a-c | 59 | a | 97 | a | ||||
| 54 | 60 | ab | 89 | a | 91 | a-c | 83 | a | 98 | a | ||||
| 107 | 74 | a | 96 | a | 96 | ab | 93 | a | 95 | a | ||||
| 10 | 0 | 0 | f | 0 | b | 0 | d | 0 | b | 0 | b | |||
| 27 | 17 | c-f | 85 | a | 95 | a-c | 76 | a | 97 | a | ||||
| 54 | 18 | c-f | 79 | a | 95 | a-c | 73 | a | 95 | a | ||||
| 107 | 37 | a-f | 93 | a | 98 | a | 90 | a | 97 | a | ||||
| 14 | 0 | 0 | f | 0 | b | 0 | d | 0 | b | 0 | b | |||
| 27 | 6 | d-f | 64 | a | 96 | ab | 93 | a | 99 | a | ||||
| 54 | 3 | ef | 75 | a | 96 | ab | 73 | a | 97 | a | ||||
| 107 | 6 | d-f | 77 | a | 98 | a | 78 | a | 98 | a | ||||
|
aRate reflects the percentage of the full labelled application rate. 0= 0 g ai ha, 0.25= 27 g ai ha, 0.5= 54 g ai ha, 1= 107 g ai ha. bApplication time indicates days after planting (DAP) the herbicide application was made. cValues followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at the 5% probability level. Data were subjected to PROC GLIMMIX in SAS Studio 3.8 with means separated by Tukey’s HSD. Data were separated by year and location. | ||||||||||||||
| Timing | Rate | Sumter County | Tift County | |||||||||||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||
| DAP | g ai/ha | ____________________________________________________cm/plant______________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||
| 0 | 0a | 10 | ab | 13 | a | 13 | a-c | 13 | a-c | 16 | a-c | 16 | b-f | |
| 27 | 10 | a | 12 | a | 13 | ab | 13 | a-c | 16 | a | 17 | b-f | ||
| 54 | 10 | a | 12 | a | 12 | b-d | 14 | ab | 15 | a-e | 17 | b-f | ||
| 107 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 11 | b-e | 13 | a-c | 14 | a-f | 17 | a-e | ||
| 3 | 0 | 9 | ab | 13 | a | 13 | bc | 13 | a-c | 16 | ab | 18 | a-e | |
| 27 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 13 | a-c | 14 | a | 16 | ab | 17 | a-f | ||
| 54 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 13 | a-c | 13 | a-c | 14 | a-e | 18 | a-d | ||
| 107 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 12 | b-d | 13 | a-c | 12 | c-g | 16 | c-g | ||
| 5 | 0 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 13 | bc | 13 | a-d | 15 | a-d | 16 | c-g | |
| 27 | 10 | ab | 13 | a | 13 | b-d | 13 | a-c | 15 | a-d | 17 | b-f | ||
| 54 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 12 | b-d | 13 | a-d | 16 | a-d | 16 | c-g | ||
| 107 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 12 | b-d | 12 | a-d | 11 | e-g | 16 | b-f | ||
| 7 | 0 | 10 | ab | 13 | a | 13 | a-c | 13 | a-c | 16 | ab | 18 | a-d | |
| 27 | 10 | a | 13 | a | 12 | b-d | 13 | a-c | 14 | a-g | 16 | c-g | ||
| 54 | 10 | ab | 11 | a | 11 | b-e | 13 | a-c | 12 | d-g | 17 | a-f | ||
| 107 | 10 | ab | 13 | a | 11 | de | 11 | b-e | 10 | g | 15 | fg | ||
| 10 | 0 | 9 | ab | 13 | a | 13 | b-d | 14 | ab | 16 | ab | 18 | a-c | |
| 27 | 8 | b | 12 | a | 12 | b-d | 11 | c-e | 13 | a-g | 15 | d-g | ||
| 54 | 10 | ab | 11 | a | 11 | c-e | 10 | de | 12 | b-g | 15 | e-g | ||
| 107 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 10 | e | 9 | e | 10 | fg | 14 | g | ||
| 14 | 0 | 10 | a | 13 | a | 14 | a | 14 | a-c | 16 | ab | 19 | a | |
| 27 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 13 | a-c | 12 | a-d | 14 | a-e | 19 | ab | ||
| 54 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 12 | b-d | 11 | b-e | 13 | a-g | 17 | a-e | ||
| 107 | 10 | ab | 12 | a | 10 | e | 11 | b-e | 13 | a-g | 16 | c-g | ||
|
aRate reflects the percentage of the full labelled application rate. 0= 0 g ai ha, 0.25= 27 g ai ha, 0.5= 54 g ai ha, 1= 107 g ai ha. bApplication time indicates days after planting (DAP) the herbicide application was made. cValues followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at the 5% probability level. Data were subjected to PROC GLIMMIX in SAS Studio 3.8 with means separated by Tukey’s HSD. Data were separated by year and location. | ||||||||||||||
| Timing | Rate | Sumter County | Tift County | |||||||||||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||
| DAP | g ai/ha | _______________________________________________________kg/ha_________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||
| 0 | 0a | 4669 | a | 4998 | a | 6823 | a | 4886 | b | 2737 | a | 3527 | a | |
| 27 | 4672 | a | 4929 | a | 7232 | a | 4697 | b | 3592 | a | 2839 | a | ||
| 54 | 4450 | a | 4720 | a | 6964 | a | 4568 | b | 3792 | a | 3108 | a | ||
| 107 | 4556 | a | 4874 | a | 7613 | a | 4508 | b | 4088 | a | 3258 | a | ||
| 3 | 0 | 4589 | a | 4799 | a | 7148 | a | 5092 | a | 4974 | a | 2779 | a | |
| 27 | 4299 | a | 5336 | a | 6922 | a | 4804 | ab | 4114 | a | 2899 | a | ||
| 54 | 4202 | a | 5095 | a | 7162 | a | 4448 | b | 5515 | a | 3228 | a | ||
| 107 | 4408 | a | 4406 | a | 7077 | a | 4059 | b | 3504 | a | 2421 | a | ||
| 5 | 0 | 4374 | a | 4883 | a | 7105 | a | 4862 | ab | 4156 | a | 3168 | a | |
| 27 | 4278 | a | 5385 | a | 7077 | a | 4204 | b | 3226 | a | 2959 | a | ||
| 54 | 4200 | a | 4781 | a | 7021 | a | 4568 | b | 3409 | a | 3198 | a | ||
| 107 | 4528 | a | 4578 | a | 7176 | a | 5046 | a | 5212 | a | 3497 | a | ||
| 7 | 0 | 4322 | a | 5188 | a | 7387 | a | 4499 | b | 3826 | a | 3557 | a | |
| 27 | 4322 | a | 4872 | a | 7317 | a | 4996 | ab | 4926 | a | 3048 | a | ||
| 54 | 4463 | a | 4656 | a | 7500 | a | 4506 | b | 2947 | a | 3078 | a | ||
| 107 | 4394 | a | 3947 | a | 7119 | a | 4834 | ab | 3564 | a | 2959 | a | ||
| 10 | 0 | 4402 | a | 5452 | a | 7683 | a | 4073 | b | 4862 | a | 3467 | a | |
| 27 | 4644 | a | 5139 | a | 7218 | a | 4521 | b | 5651 | a | 4393 | a | ||
| 54 | 4299 | a | 4593 | a | 7119 | a | 4742 | b | 5152 | a | 4513 | a | ||
| 107 | 3970 | a | 4446 | a | 7162 | a | 4363 | b | 4518 | a | 4662 | a | ||
| 14 | 0 | 4370 | a | 4857 | a | 7260 | a | 4596 | b | 3919 | a | 4095 | a | |
| 27 | 4282 | a | 5512 | a | 7218 | a | 4635 | b | 4114 | a | 3796 | a | ||
| 54 | 4320 | a | 4749 | a | 7035 | a | 4631 | b | 5257 | a | 3885 | a | ||
| 107 | 3439 | a | 4518 | a | 7021 | a | 4477 | b | 4636 | a | 3676 | a | ||
|
aRate reflects the percentage of the full labelled application rate. 0= 0 g ai ha, 0.25= 27 g ai ha, 0.5= 54 g ai ha, 1= 107 g ai ha. bApplication time indicates days after planting (DAP) the herbicide application was made. cValues followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at the 5% probability level. Data were subjected to PROC GLIMMIX in SAS Studio 3.8 with means separated by Tukey’s HSD. Data were separated by year and location. | ||||||||||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).