Abstract
Experiments conducted in North Carolina and Virginia compared weed control, peanut yield, and net returns with systems using imazethapyr applied at various times and the regional standard treatment of paraquat applied at the ground-cracking stage of peanut (GC) followed by acifluorfen plus bentazon applied POST. Imazethapyr was applied PPI, PRE, GC, or POST at 70 g ae ha −1 . Imazethapyr also was applied sequentially PPI plus GC, PPI plus POST, and PRE plus POST at 35 + 35 and 70 + 70 g ha −1 . Late-season control of common ragweed and a mixture of entireleaf, ivyleaf, and pitted morningglories by the standard treatment ranged from 85 to 100%. Spurred anoda was controlled 80%, and common lambsquarters and prickly sida were controlled completely. Control of common lambsquarters, prickly sida, and morningglory by imazethapyr applied one or more times was similar to control by the standard. Control by imazethapyr exceeded that by the standard only for spurred anoda. The most effective time for applying imazethapyr varied by species and locations. Imazethapyr was equally effective on common lambsquarters and spurred anoda when applied PPI, PRE, or GC. Prickly sida and morningglory were controlled best when imazethapyr was applied PPI or PRE and GC, respectively. Common ragweed was controlled poorly with single applications of imazethapyr. Applying imazethapyr sequentially improved consistency of control across the range of species. In most cases, imazethapyr applied sequentially at 35 + 35 g ha −1 controlled all weeds as well as or better than when applied once at 70 g ha −1 . Overall, imazethapyr at the registered rate of 70 g ha −1 was most effective when applied PPI at 35 g ha −1 followed by 35 g ha −1 at GC. Except for common ragweed, weed control with this treatment was similar to that by the standard. Peanut yield and net returns with this treatment were similar to those with the standard at three of four locations.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
The standard treatment controlled common ragweed and morningglories by 85 to 100%.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- standard treatmente0
- Interactor
- common ragweed
Ambrosia artemisiifoliae0weed - Outcome
- control of common ragweed and a mixture of entireleaf, ivyleaf, and pitted morninggloriese0
- Value
- 85 to 100%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late-season control of common ragweed and a mixture of entireleaf, ivyleaf, and pitted morningglories by the standard treatment ranged from 85 to 100%”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
The standard treatment controlled spurred anoda by 80%.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- Spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- Spurred anoda was controllede0
- Value
- 80%e0
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spurred anoda was controlled 80%”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
The standard treatment completely controlled common lambsquarters and prickly sida.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- common lambsquarters
Chenopodium albume0weed - Second interactor
- prickly sidae0weed
- Outcome
- common lambsquarters and prickly sida were controlled completelye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“common lambsquarters and prickly sida were controlled completely”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Imazethapyr control of common lambsquarters, prickly sida and morningglory was similar to the standard.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- imazethapyr applied one or more timese0
- Interactor
- common lambsquartersChenopodium albume0weed
- Second interactor
- prickly sidae0weed
- Outcome
- Control of common lambsquarters, prickly sida, and morningglorye0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- the standarde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Control of common lambsquarters, prickly sida, and morningglory by imazethapyr applied one or more times was similar to control by the standard”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Imazethapyr exceeded the standard in control of spurred anoda.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- imazethapyre0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- Controle0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Comparator
- the standarde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Control by imazethapyr exceeded that by the standard only for spurred anoda”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
The most effective application time varied by species and location.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- imazethapyre0
- Outcome
- most effective timee0
- Direction
- variede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most effective time for applying imazethapyr varied by species and locations”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Imazethapyr was equally effective against common lambsquarters and spurred anoda with PPI, PRE or GC application.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Imazethapyre0
- Interactor
- common lambsquartersChenopodium albume0weed
- Second interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- equally effective on common lambsquarters and spurred anodae0
- Direction
- equally effectivee0
- Comparator
- PPI, PRE, or GCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Imazethapyr was equally effective on common lambsquarters and spurred anoda when applied PPI, PRE, or GC”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
PPI or PRE application best controlled prickly sida.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PPI or PREe0
- Interactor
- Prickly sidae0weed
- Outcome
- Prickly sida and morningglory were controlled beste0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Prickly sida and morningglory were controlled best when imazethapyr was applied PPI or PRE and GC, respectively”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
GC application best controlled morningglory.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- GCe0
- Interactor
- morningglorye0weed
- Outcome
- morningglory were controlled beste0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Prickly sida and morningglory were controlled best when imazethapyr was applied PPI or PRE and GC, respectively”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Single imazethapyr applications poorly controlled common ragweed.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- single applications of imazethapyre0
- Interactor
- Common ragweedAmbrosia artemisiifoliae0weed
- Outcome
- Common ragweed was controlled poorlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Common ragweed was controlled poorly with single applications of imazethapyr”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sequential imazethapyr improved consistency of weed control.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- imazethapyr sequentiallye0
- Outcome
- consistency of controle0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying imazethapyr sequentially improved consistency of control across the range of species”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sequential 35 + 35 g ha −1 imazethapyr generally controlled weeds at least as well as a single 70 g ha −1 application.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- imazethapyr applied sequentially at 35 + 35 g ha −1e0
- Outcome
- controlled all weedse0
- Direction
- as well as or bettere0
- Qualifier
- In most casese0
- Comparator
- applied once at 70 g ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In most cases, imazethapyr applied sequentially at 35 + 35 g ha −1 controlled all weeds as well as or better than when applied once at 70 g ha −1”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
PPI 35 g ha −1 followed by GC 35 g ha −1 was the most effective imazethapyr schedule.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PPI at 35 g ha −1 followed by 35 g ha −1 at GCe0
- Outcome
- most effectivee0
- Direction
- most effectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, imazethapyr at the registered rate of 70 g ha −1 was most effective when applied PPI at 35 g ha −1 followed by 35 g ha −1 at GC”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
That schedule gave weed control similar to the standard except for common ragweed.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- this treatmente0
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- Except for common ragweede0
- Comparator
- the standarde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Except for common ragweed, weed control with this treatment was similar to that by the standard”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yield and net returns with that schedule were similar to the standard at three of four locations.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- this treatmente0
- Outcome
- Peanut yield and net returnse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- three of four locationse0
- Comparator
- the standarde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut yield and net returns with this treatment were similar to those with the standard at three of four locations”
t0“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
t1“Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)”
The same questions in other papers
Imazethapyr · Chenopodium album · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
Imazethapyr · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →Imazethapyr · weed · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
36 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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.