Abstract
Experiments were conducted to determine peanut tolerance to CGA-362622 applied preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) and to determine the potential for CGA-362622 applied PRE and POST to cotton to injure peanut grown in rotation the following year. CGA-362622 at 3.75 and 7.5 g ai/ha applied PRE visually injured peanut 11 and 16%, respectively, at 5 wk after treatment (WAT) but did not influence peanut yield. POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha injured peanut 63 and 93%, respectively, at 4 WAT and reduced peanut stand by 53 and 89% at 11 WAT, respectively. Peanut pod yield was reduced 73.1 and 97.9% by CGA-362622 POST at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha, respectively, compared with the untreated weed-free control. CGA-362622 PRE at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha reduced peanut pod yield 7.5 and 12.6%, respectively. Cotton was injured 9% or less by CGA-362622 PRE or POST at 3.75 or 7.5 g/ha and up to 25% with CGA-362622 POST at 15 g/ha. However, CGA-362622 did not influence weed-free cotton lint yields, regardless of method or rate of application. Peanuts grown in rotation were not injured, and yields were not influenced by CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST the previous year to cotton.Nomenclature: CGA-362622, N-[4,6-dimethoxy-(2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium salt; cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.; peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Additional index words: Carryover, crop injury, sulfonylurea herbicide.Abbreviations: ALS, acetolactate synthase; EPOST, early postemergence; LPOST, late postemergence; MPOST, mid postemergence; POST, postemergence; PRE, preemergence; WAT, weeks after treatment.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
PRE treatment injured peanut by 11% at 3.75 g ai/ha.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- CGA-362622 at 3.75 and 7.5 g ai/ha applied PREe0
- Outcome
- visually injured peanute0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 11e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGA-362622 at 3.75 and 7.5 g ai/ha applied PRE visually injured peanut 11 and 16%, respectively, at 5 wk after treatment (WAT)”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE treatment injured peanut by 16% at 7.5 g ai/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 at 3.75 and 7.5 g ai/ha applied PREe0
- Outcome
- visually injured peanute0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 16%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGA-362622 at 3.75 and 7.5 g ai/ha applied PRE visually injured peanut 11 and 16%, respectively, at 5 wk after treatment (WAT)”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE treatment did not influence peanut yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- peanut yielde0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but did not influence peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
POST treatment injured peanut by 63% at 3.75 g/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- injured peanute0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 63e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha injured peanut 63 and 93%, respectively, at 4 WAT”
Claim · model-written summary
POST treatment injured peanut by 93% at 7.5 g/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- injured peanute0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 93%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha injured peanut 63 and 93%, respectively, at 4 WAT”
Claim · model-written summary
POST treatment reduced peanut stand by 53% at 3.75 g/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- peanut stande0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 53e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha injured peanut 63 and 93%, respectively, at 4 WAT and reduced peanut stand by 53 and 89% at 11 WAT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
POST treatment reduced peanut stand by 89% at 7.5 g/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- peanut stande0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 89%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“POST treatments at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha injured peanut 63 and 93%, respectively, at 4 WAT and reduced peanut stand by 53 and 89% at 11 WAT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
POST treatment reduced pod yield by 73.1% at 3.75 g/ha.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 POST at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- Peanut pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 73.1e0
- Comparator
- untreated weed-free controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut pod yield was reduced 73.1 and 97.9% by CGA-362622 POST at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha, respectively, compared with the untreated weed-free control.”
Claim · model-written summary
POST treatment reduced pod yield by 97.9% at 7.5 g/ha.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 POST at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- Peanut pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 97.9%e0
- Comparator
- untreated weed-free controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut pod yield was reduced 73.1 and 97.9% by CGA-362622 POST at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha, respectively, compared with the untreated weed-free control.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE treatment reduced peanut pod yield by 7.5% at 3.75 g/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 PRE at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- peanut pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 7.5e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGA-362622 PRE at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha reduced peanut pod yield 7.5 and 12.6%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE treatment reduced peanut pod yield by 12.6% at 7.5 g/ha.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 PRE at 3.75 and 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- peanut pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 12.6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGA-362622 PRE at 3.75 and 7.5 g/ha reduced peanut pod yield 7.5 and 12.6%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton injury was at most 9% for PRE or POST at 3.75 or 7.5 g/ha.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- CGA-362622 PRE or POST at 3.75 or 7.5 g/hae0
- Outcome
- Cotton was injurede0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 9% or lesse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton was injured 9% or less by CGA-362622 PRE or POST at 3.75 or 7.5 g/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton injury reached 25% under POST at 15 g/ha.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 POST at 15 g/hae0
- Outcome
- Cotton was injurede0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton was injured 9% or less by CGA-362622 PRE or POST at 3.75 or 7.5 g/ha and up to 25% with CGA-362622 POST at 15 g/ha.”
Claim · model-written summary
CGA-362622 did not influence weed-free cotton lint yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622e0
- Outcome
- cotton lint yieldse0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGA-362622 did not influence weed-free cotton lint yields, regardless of method or rate of application.”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanuts in rotation were not injured by previous-year cotton treatment.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST the previous year to cottone0
- Outcome
- Peanuts grown in rotation were not injurede0
- Direction
- not injurede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanuts grown in rotation were not injured, and yields were not influenced by CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST the previous year to cotton.”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yields in rotation were not influenced by previous-year cotton treatment.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST the previous year to cottone0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanuts grown in rotation were not injured, and yields were not influenced by CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST the previous year to cotton.”
The same questions in other papers
Gossypium hirsutum · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →herbicide · organism · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →herbicide · crop injury · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →herbicide · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →herbicide · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 172 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
226 papers more in this group
See all 230 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.