Comparison of No-tillage, Minimum, and Full Tillage Cultural Practices on Peanuts

Abstract

The no-tillage system for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) was investigated &om 1978 to 1981 in comparison with minimum and full tillage. Dficulty in controlling weeds, soil compaction, and reduced yields were problems associated with no-tillage peanut culture. No-tillage plots yielded 600 to 2400 kgha less than full tillage each year, while the minimum tillage plots were intermediate in yield. Peanut grades were not different except in 1980 when the no-tillage system graded less than full or minimum tillage. Disease due to southern blight (Sclerotiurn roKs$ was not aEected by tillage system except in 1980 when the full tillage plots produced a lower pod disease rating than minimum or no-tillage. Target hits were lower in the no-tillage plots than full tillage plots when averaged over the four year period.Key Words: Groundnut, no-tillage, minimum tillage, disease, yield, target sites.Minimum tillage and no-tillage have reduced production costs of corn, grain sorghum, and soybeans (1,6,10,11,13). However, very limited research has been reported with the use of these cultural practices in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). If no-till were a viable alternative in peanut cultures, considerable savings in energy, machinery, and labor requirements could result in increased net returns for the peanut producer. No-tillage systems have not been considered feasible in peanuts due to potential problems of 1) severe disease infestations which can occur &om crop residue left on the soil surface, 2) weed competition due to poor control, especially for grass species prior to over the top herbicide availability, and 3) digging problems associated with weeds, crop residue, and soil compaction.The no-tillage system could be very useful in controlling soil erosion and conserving soil moisture. Its use in peanuts has been primarily confined to studies in Texas In comparison with conventional cultural practices, notillage reduced foliage, pod, and kernel yields by 58, 64, and 62 percent, respectively. Poor performance was attributed to at least two factors: 1) an inadequately prepared seed bed with a compacted zone immediately below and to the sides of the row which resulted in shallow planting, and 2) intense competition from grasses in the second half of the season which contributed to lower pod yields. Rajan et al. (14) conducted no-tillage research in India and found that no-tillage did not reduce the pod yield. He found that sandy loam soil facilitedeasy peg penetration and pod development, and higher soil moisture retention in the no-tillage accounted for no yield reduction. Surprisingly, in many instances southern blight has not become a severe problem in the no-tillage system.Hartzog and Adams (7) stated that elimination of deep tillage did not affect white mold hits. Colvin et al. (5) reported that in 1984 Sclerotium roLfsii occurred more frequently in conventional tillage plots than in the strip-tillage or no-tillage treatments while in 1985 disease occurrence was less in the no-tillage and conventional tillage plots.Pod...

Early Leafspot of Peanuts: Effect of Conservational Tillage Practices on Disease Development1

“…Root rots caused by several soilborne fungi, including Fusarium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Rhizoctonia spp., were generally lower under conservational tillage systems (15). Although Garren (4) demonstrated that plant residue increased the incidence of stem rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc., recent studies have shown that the presence of residue associated with minimum tillage had little to no effect on the incidence of stem rot (3,5,7). In a five-year study (7) in Alabama, stem rot .severity in peanut did not increase under reduced tillage systems even though plant residues remained on top ofthe soil,.…”

“…In other systems, seed are planted into a seedbed prepared in a narrow band of soil that had been ' Interest in the use of conservational tillage in peanut production has developed during the past decade; but the use of such a production system in peanut is usually associated with several unfavorable factors. These include a suspected increase in disease development related to residue buildup, poor plant stands due to poor seedbed preparation, reduced plant growth due to compacted soil, lack ofsatisfactory weed control, and reduced pod and seed quality (3,5,16,17,18). Diseases caused by both soilborne and' foliar pathogens decrease in a number of crops grown using conservational tillage systems that do not eliminate residue from the soil surface (2,10,14,15).…”

Reduced Tillage Practices for the Southwestern US Peanut Production Region

“…The increase in weed pressure in NT systems was expected, particularly given the inability to incorporate pre-emergence herbicides. Grichar and Boswell (1987) also observed an increase in weed pressure in NT peanut production. However, it is important to note that post-emergence herbicide applications can be used to successfully control any remaining weeds, as they were in this study.…”

“…In North Carolina, reduced tillage decreased sclerotinia blight where considerable residue was left for ground cover prior to planting (Jordan et al, 2003). Grichar and Boswell (1987) observed that no-till systems decreased peanut yield 600 to 2400 kg ha 21 in Texas and cited a lack of weed control and compaction as the reasons for reduced yield. The varied results suggest more research is needed to identify the soils and environments under which reduced or NT systems perform well, including measuring the impact of plant diseases.…”

Interaction of Tillage System and Irrigation Amount on Peanut Performance in the Southeastern U.S

“…In summary, five studies have given conservation tillage a clear advantage in either yield, improved quality, or net economic returns (Brandenburg et al 1998;Hartzog and Adams, 1989;Hurt et al, 2006;Marois and Wright, 2003;Tubbs and Gallaher, 2005). Seven studies, four of which were conducted with the virginia market type, favored conventional, high intensity tillage practices that could not be considered conservation tillage Grichar and Boswell, 1987;Jordan et al, 2001;Jordan et al, 2003;Minton et al, 1991;Wright and Porter, 1991a;Wright and Porter, 1995). Not surprisingly, seven other studies showed no differences in conservation tillage systems versus conventional tillage (Chapin et al, 2001;Grichar, 2006;Grichar and Smith, 1992;Grichar and Smith, 1992;Johnson et al, 2001;Wiatrak et al, 2004).…”