Abstract
Field studies were conducted in different peanut-growing areas of Texas during the 1999 through 2001 growing seasons to evaluate yellow nutsedge control and peanut tolerance to diclosulam alone applied PRE, S -metolachlor alone applied POST, or diclosulam applied PRE followed by (fb) S -metolachlor applied POST. Yellow nutsedge control was > 80% at five of six locations when diclosulam at 0.018 or 0.026 kg/ha applied PRE was fb S -metolachlor applied POST at 0.56, 1.12, or 1.46 kg ai/ha. Peanut stunting was noted with diclosulam at the High Plains locations but not at the Rolling Plains or south Texas locations. This stunting with diclosulam was due to a combination of peanut variety and high soil pH. Peanut yield was not always increased where yellow nutsedge was controlled.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
Sequential diclosulam and S-metolachlor controlled nutsedge above 80% at five of six locations.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- diclosulam at 0.018 or 0.026 kg/ha applied PRE was fb S -metolachlor applied POST at 0.56, 1.12, or 1.46 kg ai/hae0
- Interactor
- Yellow nutsedgee0weed
- Outcome
- Yellow nutsedge controle0
- Direction
- >e0
- Value
- > 80%e0
- Qualifier
- five of six locationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellow nutsedge control was > 80% at five of six locations when diclosulam at 0.018 or 0.026 kg/ha applied PRE was fb S -metolachlor applied POST at 0.56, 1.12, or 1.46 kg ai/ha.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Diclosulam caused peanut stunting at High Plains sites.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- diclosulame0
- Outcome
- Peanut stuntinge0
- Comparator
- Rolling Plains or south Texas locationse0
- Setting
- High Plains locationse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut stunting was noted with diclosulam at the High Plains locations but not at the Rolling Plains or south Texas locations.”
Claim · model-written summary
Stunting was linked to peanut variety and high soil pH.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- diclosulame0
- Outcome
- stuntinge0
- Qualifier
- combination of peanut variety and high soil pHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This stunting with diclosulam was due to a combination of peanut variety and high soil pH.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yield did not consistently rise where nutsedge was controlled.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Interactor
- yellow nutsedgee0weed
- Outcome
- Peanut yielde0
- Direction
- not always increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut yield was not always increased where yellow nutsedge was controlled.”
The same questions in other papers
metolachlor · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →Diclosulam · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →Diclosulam · crop injury · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.